6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2013 0 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. Andersongreen2 sentences2008The Idaho Supreme Court recently held that a claim of error in the elements instruction in a criminal case may be raised as fundamental error on appeal, State v. Anderson, 144 Idaho 743, 748-49 , 170 P.3d 886, 891-92 (2007), but this Court has held that failure to raise an issue of fundamental error for a matter that occurred without objection in the trial court will not be deemed ineffective assistance of the appellate attorney. 2008The Idaho Supreme Court recently held that a claim of error in the elements instruction in a criminal case may be raised as fundamental error on appeal, State v. Anderson, 144 Idaho 743, 748-49 , 170 P.3d 886, 891-92 (2007), but this Court has held that failure to raise an issue of fundamental error for a matter that occurred without objection in the trial court will not be deemed ineffective assistance of the appellate attorney. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Avilagreen2 sentences2003See I.C.J.I. 705; State v. Avila, 137 Idaho 410, 414 , 49 P.3d 1260, 1264 (Ct.App.2002). 2003See I.C.J.I. 705; State v. Avila, 137 Idaho 410, 414 , 49 P.3d 1260, 1264 (Ct.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greensweiggreen2 sentences2002Moreover, the use of an instruction containing the language of 12A was previously approved by this Court in State v. Greensweig, 102 Idaho 794, 798 , 641 P.2d 340, 344 (Ct.App.1982), and the Idaho Supreme Court has approved it as a pattern jury instruction. 2002Moreover, the use of an instruction containing the language of 12A was previously approved by this Court in State v. Greensweig, 102 Idaho 794, 798 , 641 P.2d 340, 344 (Ct.App.1982), and the Idaho Supreme Court has approved it as a pattern jury instruction. | 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. Pinkney
green
2 sentences2013“However, if a jury makes explicit its difficulties with a point of law pertinent to the case, thereby revealing a defect, ambiguity or gap in the instructions, then the trial court has the duty to give such additional instructions on the law as are reasonably necessary to alleviate the jury’s doubt or confusion.” Pinkney, 115 Idaho at 1154 , 772 P.2d at 1248 . 2013“However, if a jury makes explicit its difficulties with a point of law pertinent to the case, thereby revealing a defect, ambiguity or gap in the instructions, then the trial court has the duty to give such additional instructions on the law as are reasonably necessary to alleviate the jury’s doubt or confusion.” Pinkney, 115 Idaho at 1154 , 772 P.2d at 1248 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Halbesleben
green
2 sentences2013Cf. Id. (noting a specific pattern jury instruction that, standing alone, is insufficient to convey the elements the State must prove). 2013Cf. Id. (noting a specific pattern jury instruction that, standing alone, is insufficient to convey the elements the State must prove). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Franklin v. Lynaugh
green
2 sentences1990The Court specifically noted that "there is no ... constitutional requirement of unfettered sentencing discretion in the jury, and States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating evidence `in an effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration of the death penalty.'" Id., at ___, 110 S.Ct., at 1196 (quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 181 , 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2331 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (plurality opinion)). 1990The Court specifically noted that "there is no ... constitutional requirement of unfettered sentencing discretion in the jury, and States are free to structure and shape consideration of mitigating evidence `in an effort to achieve a more rational and equitable administration of the death penalty.'" Id., at ___, 110 S.Ct., at 1196 (quoting Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 181 , 108 S.Ct. 2320, 2331 , 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988) (plurality opinion)). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.