52 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2024 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1999Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 813 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3145 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 650-51 (1990); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 156 (1987). 1999Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 813 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3145 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 650-51 (1990); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 156 (1987). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Katherine Lea Stanfieldgreen2 sentences2024The Idaho Constitution “does not contain a confrontation clause similar to that found in the United States Constitution; therefore, this issue is analyzed solely under the United States Constitution.” State v. Stanfield, 158 Idaho 327, 332 , 347 P.3d 175, 180 (2015). 2024The Idaho Constitution “does not contain a confrontation clause similar to that found in the United States Constitution; therefore, this issue is analyzed solely under the United States Constitution.” State v. Stanfield, 158 Idaho 327, 332 , 347 P.3d 175, 180 (2015). | 2 | 6 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021VI, § 1. “[T]his provision[, also known as the confrontation clause,] bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had [] a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 616 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1069 (2017) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2004)). 2021VI, § 1. “[T]his provision[, also known as the confrontation clause,] bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had [] a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 616 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1069 (2017) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2004)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Meegreen2 sentences1988Subsequently, both Potter and Villarreal were overruled by this Court's recent decision in State v. Mee, 102 Idaho 474 , 632 P.2d 663 (1981). [2] Ante at 678, "Since our decision today is not based on the confrontation clause ...," and ante at 678, "We emphasize that our decision today is not based on an asserted violation of the confrontation clause... ." [3] The statutes at issue in Potter do not differ materially from present I.C. §§ 19-3101 et seq. [4] The phrase "other rules applicable in the courts of this state" in I.R.E. 402 would refer to the constitutional right of confrontation. 1988Subsequently, both Potter and Villarreal were overruled by this Court's recent decision in State v. Mee, 102 Idaho 474 , 632 P.2d 663 (1981). [2] Ante at 678, "Since our decision today is not based on the confrontation clause ...," and ante at 678, "We emphasize that our decision today is not based on an asserted violation of the confrontation clause... ." [3] The statutes at issue in Potter do not differ materially from present I.C. §§ 19-3101 et seq. [4] The phrase "other rules applicable in the courts of this state" in I.R.E. 402 would refer to the constitutional right of confrontation. | 2 | 4 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences1999While a literal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause might bar the use of all hearsay when the declarant is unavailable, the United States Supreme Court has rejected that view as “unintended and too extreme.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 606 (1980); see also Craig, 497 U.S. at 847 , 110 S.Ct. at 3164 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 679 . 1999While a literal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause might bar the use of all hearsay when the declarant is unavailable, the United States Supreme Court has rejected that view as “unintended and too extreme.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 606 (1980); see also Craig, 497 U.S. at 847 , 110 S.Ct. at 3164 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 679 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Darol Keith Andersongreen2 sentences2021VI, § 1. “[T]his provision[, also known as the confrontation clause,] bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had [] a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 616 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1069 (2017) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2004)). 2021VI, § 1. “[T]his provision[, also known as the confrontation clause,] bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had [] a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” State v. Anderson, 162 Idaho 610, 616 , 402 P.3d 1063, 1069 (2017) (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2004)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Thomas John Kralovecgreen2 sentences2021This Court has rejected the doctrine of res gestae, and we are consequently suspicious of “context” arguments that mimic arguments in favor of so-called “res gestae evidence.” See State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569, 573 , 388 P.3d 583, 587 (2017). 2021This Court has rejected the doctrine of res gestae, and we are consequently suspicious of “context” arguments that mimic arguments in favor of so-called “res gestae evidence.” See State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569, 573 , 388 P.3d 583, 587 (2017). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sharpgreen2 sentences2009As stated in State v. Sharp, 101 Idaho 498, 502 , 616 P.2d 1034, 1038 (1980), "Idaho’s Constitution does not contain a confrontation clause equivalent to that of the United States Constitution.” Mantz does not provide argument as to why greater rights should be afforded under the Idaho Constitution than under the United States Constitution. 2009As stated in State v. Sharp, 101 Idaho 498, 502 , 616 P.2d 1034, 1038 (1980), "Idaho’s Constitution does not contain a confrontation clause equivalent to that of the United States Constitution.” Mantz does not provide argument as to why greater rights should be afforded under the Idaho Constitution than under the United States Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hoopergreen2 sentences2013A subsequent case, Davis v. Washington [ 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) ], ... further clarified Crawford , but left many issues unresolved.” 145 Idaho at 142 , 176 P.3d at 914 . 2013A subsequent case, Davis v. Washington [ 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) ], ... further clarified Crawford , but left many issues unresolved.” 145 Idaho at 142 , 176 P.3d at 914 . | 1 | 4 |
Douglas v. Alabamagreen2 sentences1988See also Douglas v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). 722 It is true that there has traditionally been an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant. 1988See also Douglas v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). 722 It is true that there has traditionally been an exception to the confrontation requirement where a witness is unavailable and has given testimony at previous judicial proceedings against the same defendant which was subject to cross-examination by that defendant. | 1 | 3 |
Maryland v. Craiggreen2 sentences1999While a literal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause might bar the use of all hearsay when the declarant is unavailable, the United States Supreme Court has rejected that view as “unintended and too extreme.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 606 (1980); see also Craig, 497 U.S. at 847 , 110 S.Ct. at 3164 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 679 . 1999While a literal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause might bar the use of all hearsay when the declarant is unavailable, the United States Supreme Court has rejected that view as “unintended and too extreme.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 606 (1980); see also Craig, 497 U.S. at 847 , 110 S.Ct. at 3164 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 679 . | 1 | 2 |
Herbert William Chipman v. James Mercer, Chief Probation Officergreen2 sentences1987The Ninth Circuit in a case involving review of a state proceeding stated that, “the confrontation clause applies to the essentials of cross-examination, not to all the details of its implementation.” Chipman v. Mercer, 628 F.2d 528, 531 (9th Cir.1980). 1984Although it tips the scales in favor of permitting cross-examination, the confrontation clause does not prevent the trial court from weighing the offer of proof to determine its probative value to the trier of fact and its probable effect on fair and efficient conduct of the trial." Chipman further states that, while "confrontation clause doctrine appears to require reversal if there is any error ..., [t]he seeming harshness of that rule is diminished, however, because the confrontation clause violation generally does not occur unless the denied area of cross-examination is one of considerable | 1 | 2 |
Bruton v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1985Behind the Bruton rule is "the right of cross-examination secured by the confrontation clause." Bruton, id. at 128 , 88 S.Ct. at 1623 ; Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419 , 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1077 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). 1985Behind the Bruton rule is "the right of cross-examination secured by the confrontation clause." Bruton, id. at 128 , 88 S.Ct. at 1623 ; Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419 , 85 S.Ct. 1074, 1077 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). | 1 | 2 |
Dutton v. Evansgreen2 sentences1985Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). 1985Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 , 91 S.Ct. 210 , 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970). | 1 | 2 |
Coy v. Iowagreen1 sentence2022Though the United States Supreme Court “observed in Coy v. Iowa that ‘the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact,’ ” it has “never held [] that the Confrontation Clause guarantees criminal defendants the absolute right to a face-to-face meeting with witnesses against them at trial.” Craig, 497 U.S. at 844 (quoting Coy, 487 U.S. 1012, 1016 (1988)) (italics in original). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2022Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358-59 (2011). 2022Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358-59 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See also Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 411-16 (Del. 2010); Johnson v. State, 235 S.E.2d 550, 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977). 4 Supreme Court noted that probationers do not enjoy the full panoply of constitutional rights granted to criminal defendants, a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution, and that neither the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause nor the Idaho Rules of Evidence apply to probation revocation proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See also Cruz v. State, 990 A.2d 409, 411-16 (Del. 2010); Johnson v. State, 235 S.E.2d 550, 552 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977). 4 Supreme Court noted that probationers do not enjoy the full panoply of constitutional rights granted to criminal defendants, a probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution, and that neither the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause nor the Idaho Rules of Evidence apply to probation revocation proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Gary W. Mallory, II v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Mallory v. State, 159 Idaho 715, 721 , 366 P.3d 637, 643 (Ct. App. 2015). 2018Mallory v. State, 159 Idaho 715, 721 , 366 P.3d 637, 643 (Ct. App. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. David Leroy Leegreen2 sentences2017Ms. Smith raises three issues on appeal: (a) that the district court erred in overruling the Confrontation Clause objection to the detective’s statement that the video showed Mr. Kendle standing at the bar “talking to what he said was his person that could supply him with mushrooms”; (b) that the district court erred in overruling the hearsay objection to the same statement; and (e) that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ms. Smith, “[T]his Court will not address constitutional issues when a case can be decided upon other grounds.” State v. Lee, 153 Idaho 559, 563 , 286 P.3d 537, 541 ( 2017Ms. Smith raises three issues on appeal: (a) that the district court erred in overruling the Confrontation Clause objection to the detective’s statement that the video showed Mr. Kendle standing at the bar “talking to what he said was his person that could supply him with mushrooms”; (b) that the district court erred in overruling the hearsay objection to the same statement; and (e) that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ms. Smith, “[T]his Court will not address constitutional issues when a case can be decided upon other grounds.” State v. Lee, 153 Idaho 559, 563 , 286 P.3d 537, 541 ( | 1 | 1 |
State v. Azad Haji Abdullahgreen2 sentences2015State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 400 , 348 P.3d 1, 115 (2015); Giles v. State, 125 Idaho 921, 924 , 877 P.2d 365, 368 (1994). 2015State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 400 , 348 P.3d 1, 115 (2015); Giles v. State, 125 Idaho 921, 924 , 877 P.2d 365, 368 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Giles v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Illinoisred | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Howard, 126 Idaho at 233 , 880 P.2d at 263 . 2015See Howard, 126 Idaho at 233 , 880 P.2d at 263 . | 1 | 1 |
| Summers v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McGillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lassekgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Leongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Galindogreen | 1 | 1 |
| McDonald v. Bellequegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Banksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harper v. Commonwealthgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cutlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Doegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John Walter Trala A/K/A Sonny A/K/A Walter John Trala John Walter Tralagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2019We will leave for another day whether Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) and its Confrontation Clause analysis affects the Bruton rule in Idaho. 2019We will leave for another day whether Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and its Confrontation Clause analysis affects the Bruton rule in Idaho. | 6 | 2006–2019 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences1989California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), hold that hearsay is admissible under the confrontation clause if it bears "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" and "indicia of reliability." But, as those opinions point out, the "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" and "indicia of reliability" are to be determined from all of the facts and circumstances, not just the requirements set forth in the majority opinion. 1989California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), and Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), hold that hearsay is admissible under the confrontation clause if it bears "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" and "indicia of reliability." But, as those opinions point out, the "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" and "indicia of reliability" are to be determined from all of the facts and circumstances, not just the requirements set forth in the majority opinion. | 6 | 1971–1989 |
State v. Perry
green
2 sentences2019The harmless error test as set forth in State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 , 245 P.3d 961 (2010) is: where a constitutional violation occurs at trial, and is followed by a contemporaneous objection, a reversal is necessitated, unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. 2019The harmless error test as set forth in State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 , 245 P.3d 961 (2010) is: where a constitutional violation occurs at trial, and is followed by a contemporaneous objection, a reversal is necessitated, unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained. | 4 | 2011–2019 |
State v. Elisondo
green
2 sentences2009Elisondo, 114 Idaho at 415 , 757 P.2d at 678 . 7 The year following issuance of the decision in Elisondo , the legislature responded. 1997The Court did not rely on constitutional grounds but, rather, relied upon considerations of public policy, stating: We emphasize that our decision today is not based on an asserted violation of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution, but rather the independent right of a state to exercise its own authority in this area, and our view that public policy considerations require such decision. 114 Idaho at 415, 757 P.2d at 678 . | 2 | 1997–2009 |
State v. Potter
green
2 sentences1988BAKES, Justice, dissenting: The Court today, eschewing any suggestion that its decision is based upon the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, concludes that the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness in a subsequent criminal trial violates certain "public policy considerations" gleaned from a case nearly a century old, State v. Potter, 6 Idaho 584 , 57 P. 431 (1899), [1] without explaining how those early "public policy considerations" relate to the public policy expressed in the current statutes, Court decisions and 1988BAKES, Justice, dissenting: The Court today, eschewing any suggestion that its decision is based upon the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, concludes that the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness in a subsequent criminal trial violates certain "public policy considerations" gleaned from a case nearly a century old, State v. Potter, 6 Idaho 584 , 57 P. 431 (1899), [1] without explaining how those early "public policy considerations" relate to the public policy expressed in the current statutes, Court decisions and | 2 | 1980–1988 |
State v. Villarreal
green
2 sentences1984Overruling the unanimous decision handed down but ten years earlier, State v. Villarreal, 94 Idaho 246 , 486 P.2d 257 (1971), and which was still controlling case-law when these defendants were charged and tried, the three-member majority in Mee arrived at this holding: “When the declarant is unavailable, but has previously testified in a judicial forum complete with oath, recordation, presence of the defendant and counsel, and adequate opportunity to cross-examine, that earlier testimony is admissible without violation of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution.” Mee, supra 1984Overruling the unanimous decision handed down but ten years earlier, State v. Villarreal, 94 Idaho 246 , 486 P.2d 257 (1971), and which was still controlling case-law when these defendants were charged and tried, the three-member majority in Mee arrived at this holding: “When the declarant is unavailable, but has previously testified in a judicial forum complete with oath, recordation, presence of the defendant and counsel, and adequate opportunity to cross-examine, that earlier testimony is admissible without violation of the confrontation clause of the United States Constitution.” Mee, supra | 2 | 1980–1984 |
State v. Rose
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 765-66, 171 P.3d at 256-57 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018ANALYSIS Bennett asserts that, because the State’s motion did not address his Confrontation Clause claim with particularity, the district court improperly dismissed the claim without providing any 1 See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2 notice of the grounds for dismissal. 2018Because the State’s motion only requested dismissal of Bennett’s “synthesized” ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and the district court only dismissed those claims based on Bennett’s failure to present evidence under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Bennett’s Confrontation Clause claim was dismissed without the notice required by I.C. § 19-4906. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Delaware v. Fensterer green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Tennessee v. Street green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| White v. Illinois green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| United States v. Inadi green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Gagnon v. Scarpelli red | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Morrissey v. Brewer green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Byers green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Davis v. Alaska green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Thibodeaux green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Mattox v. United States green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Coffin v. Edgington green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Territory v. Evans neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Roberts v. Russell green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.