52 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2025To obtain relief under the fundamental error doctrine, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) “one or more of the defendant’s unwaived constitutional rights were violated”; (2) the error is “clear or obvious” on the record “without the need for any additional information,” including information “as to whether the failure to object was a tactical decision”; and (3) “the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights,” by showing a reasonable possibility that the error “affected the outcome of the trial proceedings.” Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . 2025To obtain relief under the fundamental error doctrine, a defendant must demonstrate: (1) “one or more of the defendant’s unwaived constitutional rights were violated”; (2) the error is “clear or obvious” on the record “without the need for any additional information,” including information “as to whether the failure to object was a tactical decision”; and (3) “the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights,” by showing a reasonable possibility that the error “affected the outcome of the trial proceedings.” Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . | 10 | 40 |
State v. Fieldgreen2 sentences2011The Court stated: “Evidence of prior sexual misconduct with young children is so prejudicial that there is a reasonable possibility this error contributed to Johnson’s conviction.” Id. at 670 , 227 P.3d at 924 . “[AJdmitting such propensity evidence may reflect ‘the unstated belief that sexual devianey is a character trait of especially powerful probative value for predicting a defendant’s behavior.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 569-70 , 165 P.3d 273, 283-84 (2007)). 2011The Court stated: “Evidence of prior sexual misconduct with young children is so prejudicial that there is a reasonable possibility this error contributed to Johnson’s conviction.” Id. at 670 , 227 P.3d at 924 . “[AJdmitting such propensity evidence may reflect ‘the unstated belief that sexual devianey is a character trait of especially powerful probative value for predicting a defendant’s behavior.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 569-70 , 165 P.3d 273, 283-84 (2007)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Whitakergreen2 sentences2012Because officers were present in the general vicinity of the transaction, this case is distinguishable from State v. Whitaker, 152 Idaho 945 , 277 P.3d 392 (Ct. App. 2012), where we held it was error for the prosecutor to argue the testimony was “uncontroverted” as to sexual contact and related incidents that occurred when only Whitaker and one of the victims were present, because Whitaker was the only logical witness to rebut the testimony. 6 However, we need not resolve the issue of whether these statements constituted plain error because we conclude Scott has failed to satisfy the third Per 2012Because officers were present in the general vicinity of the transaction, this case is distinguishable from State v. Whitaker, 152 Idaho 945 , 277 P.3d 392 (Ct. App. 2012), where we held it was error for the prosecutor to argue the testimony was “uncontroverted” as to sexual contact and related incidents that occurred when only Whitaker and one of the victims were present, because Whitaker was the only logical witness to rebut the testimony. 6 However, we need not resolve the issue of whether these statements constituted plain error because we conclude Scott has failed to satisfy the third Per | 2 | 3 |
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlapgreen2 sentences2018The burden is on the defendant to prove "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id. ; see also State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345 , 361-63, 313 P.3d 1 , 17-19 (2013) (applying the harmless error and fundamental error standards from Perry to capital cases). 2018The burden is on the defendant to prove "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id. ; see also State v. Dunlap , 155 Idaho 345 , 361-63, 313 P.3d 1 , 17-19 (2013) (applying the harmless error and fundamental error standards from Perry to capital cases). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Humpherysgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Humpherys, 134 Idaho 657, 661-62 , 8 P.3d 652, 656-57 (2000) (overturning prior precedent requiring an additional jury instruction when a case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and holding that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value). 2014See State v. Humpherys, 134 Idaho 657, 661-62 , 8 P.3d 652, 656-57 (2000) (overturning prior precedent requiring an additional jury instruction when a case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence and holding that circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cortezgreen2 sentences2015Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . “[P]rosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will constitute fundamental error only if the comments were so egregious or inflammatory that any consequent prejudice could not have been remedied by a ruling from the trial court informing the jury that the comments should be disregarded.” Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 280 , 77 P.3d at 969 (quoting State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2001)). 2015Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . “[P]rosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will constitute fundamental error only if the comments were so egregious or inflammatory that any consequent prejudice could not have been remedied by a ruling from the trial court informing the jury that the comments should be disregarded.” Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 280 , 77 P.3d at 969 (quoting State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). 2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). 2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Slatergreen2 sentences2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). 2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2015“Evidence of prior sexual misconduct with young children is so prejudicial that there is a reasonable possibility this error contributed to [Defendant’s] conviction. ... [Admitting such propensity evidence may reflect ‘the unstated belief that sexual devianey is a character trait of especially powerful probative value for predicting a defendant’s behavior.’ ” Id. 2011The Court stated: “Evidence of prior sexual misconduct with young children is so prejudicial that there is a reasonable possibility this error contributed to Johnson’s conviction.” Id. at 670 , 227 P.3d at 924 . “[AJdmitting such propensity evidence may reflect ‘the unstated belief that sexual devianey is a character trait of especially powerful probative value for predicting a defendant’s behavior.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 569-70 , 165 P.3d 273, 283-84 (2007)). | 6 | 2010–2020 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2025Eleven years later, in Miller, 165 Idaho 115 , 443 P.3d 129 , we were once again called on to clarify the harmless error prong of the fundamental error doctrine. 2025Eleven years later, in Miller, 165 Idaho 115 , 443 P.3d 129 , we were once again called on to clarify the harmless error prong of the fundamental error doctrine. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Tristum Beeks, II
green
2 sentences2021Criminal Law: Substantive Principles § 36 (2021). 19 violation . . . [a defendant must] show a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” Beeks, 159 Idaho at 231 , 358 P.3d at 792 (citing Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 ). 2021Criminal Law: Substantive Principles § 36 (2021). 19 violation . . . [a defendant must] show a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” Beeks, 159 Idaho at 231 , 358 P.3d at 792 (citing Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Bernal
green
1 sentence2019Accordingly, Medina must show "a reasonable possibility that the error 'affected the outcome of the trial court proceedings.' " Bernal, 164 Idaho at 193 , 427 P.3d at 4 (quoting Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Russell James Parker
green
2 sentences2018However, this Court went on to hold that the error was harmless because the defendant did not meet his burden of proving “there 21 [was] a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” Id. at 148 , 334 P.3d at 822 (quoting State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 226 , 245 P.3d 961, 978 (2010)). 2018However, this Court went on to hold that the error was harmless because the defendant did not meet his burden of proving "there [was] a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial." Id . at 148, 334 P.3d at 822 (quoting State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209 , 226, 245 P.3d 961 , 978 (2010) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lovelace
green
2 sentences2018Hall has failed to meet his burden to prove that "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial," Perry , 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 , or that there exists "specific prejudice from such error," Lovelace , 140 Idaho at 65 , 90 P.3d at 290 . 2018Hall has failed to meet his burden to prove that "there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome of the trial," Perry , 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 , or that there exists "specific prejudice from such error," Lovelace , 140 Idaho at 65 , 90 P.3d at 290 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sheahan
green
2 sentences2015Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . “[P]rosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will constitute fundamental error only if the comments were so egregious or inflammatory that any consequent prejudice could not have been remedied by a ruling from the trial court informing the jury that the comments should be disregarded.” Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 280 , 77 P.3d at 969 (quoting State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2001)). 2015Perry, 150 Idaho at 226 , 245 P.3d at 978 . “[P]rosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments will constitute fundamental error only if the comments were so egregious or inflammatory that any consequent prejudice could not have been remedied by a ruling from the trial court informing the jury that the comments should be disregarded.” Sheahan, 139 Idaho at 280 , 77 P.3d at 969 (quoting State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 565 , 21 P.3d 498, 502 (Ct.App.2001)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Grist
green
2 sentences2015As we stated in Grist , “We once again caution the trial courts of this state that they must carefully examine evidence offered for the purpose of demonstrating the existence of a common scheme or plan in order to the [sic] determine whether the requisite relationship exists.” 147 Idaho at 55 , 205 P.3d at 1191 . 2015As we stated in Grist , “We once again caution the trial courts of this state that they must carefully examine evidence offered for the purpose of demonstrating the existence of a common scheme or plan in order to the [sic] determine whether the requisite relationship exists.” 147 Idaho at 55 , 205 P.3d at 1191 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Betancourt
green
2 sentences2012Our decision in State v. Betancourt, 151 Idaho 635 , 262 P.3d 278 (Ct. App. 2011) is helpful in determining whether Gallegos has shown a reasonable possibility the error in this case affected the outcome and, thus, amounted to fundamental error. 2012Our decision in State v. Betancourt, 151 Idaho 635 , 262 P.3d 278 (Ct. App. 2011) is helpful in determining whether Gallegos has shown a reasonable possibility the error in this case affected the outcome and, thus, amounted to fundamental error. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2011Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2010In Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469 , 475 n. 13, 491 P.2d 733 , 739 n. 13 (1971), we adopted the following definition of fundamental error from the New Mexico Supreme Court: Error that is fundamental must be such error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or must go to the foundation of the ease or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive. 2010In Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469 , 475 n. 13, 491 P.2d 733 , 739 n. 13 (1971), we adopted the following definition of fundamental error from the New Mexico Supreme Court: Error that is fundamental must be such error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights or must go to the foundation of the ease or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). 2003Gomez, 137 Idaho at 677 , 52 P.3d at 321 ; State v. Moore, 131 Idaho 814, 821 , 965 P.2d 174, 181 (1998); State v. Green, 136 Idaho 553, 557 , 38 P.3d 132, 136 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Slater, 136 Idaho 293, 300 , 32 P.3d 685, 692 (Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1984It concluded, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that “there is certainly a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict ... [and] therefore cannot be considered harmless.” 665 P.2d at 59 . 1984It concluded, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that "there is certainly a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict ... [and] therefore cannot be considered harmless." 665 P.2d at 59 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1984It concluded, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that “there is certainly a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict ... [and] therefore cannot be considered harmless.” 665 P.2d at 59 . 1984It concluded, citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), that “there is certainly a reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict ... [and] therefore cannot be considered harmless.” 665 P.2d at 59 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.