prosecutorial misconduct analysis (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

prosecutorial misconduct analysis in Idaho

6 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Millergreen
idaho · 2019 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023The Idaho Supreme Court has recently reiterated the standard for analyzing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct: The first step in a prosecutorial misconduct analysis “is to determine whether the alleged conduct actually rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.” This Court has said, “[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State ‘attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” “[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresenta

2023The Idaho Supreme Court has recently reiterated the standard for analyzing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct: The first step in a prosecutorial misconduct analysis “is to determine whether the alleged conduct actually rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.” This Court has said, “[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State ‘attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” “[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresenta

22
State v. Azad Haji Abdullahgreen
idaho · 2015 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2019
2 sentences

2019This Court has said, "[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State 'attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.' " Bernal , 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386 , 440, 348 P.3d 1 , 55 (2015) ). "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics." Id. (quoting State v. Moses , 156 Idaho 855 , 871, 332 P.3d 767 , 783 (2014) ).

2019This Court has said, "[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State 'attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.' " Bernal , 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386 , 440, 348 P.3d 1 , 55 (2015) ). "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics." Id. (quoting State v. Moses , 156 Idaho 855 , 871, 332 P.3d 767 , 783 (2014) ).

12
State v. Joshua Michael Mosesgreen
idaho · 2014 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2010–2019
2 sentences

2019This Court has said, "[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State 'attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.' " Bernal , 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386 , 440, 348 P.3d 1 , 55 (2015) ). "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics." Id. (quoting State v. Moses , 156 Idaho 855 , 871, 332 P.3d 767 , 783 (2014) ).

2019This Court has said, "[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State 'attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.' " Bernal , 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386 , 440, 348 P.3d 1 , 55 (2015) ). "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics." Id. (quoting State v. Moses , 156 Idaho 855 , 871, 332 P.3d 767 , 783 (2014) ).

12
State v. Reynoldsgreen
idahoctapp · 1991 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
2 sentences

2025“The purpose of the prosecutor’s closing argument, not unlike that of the defense in this regard, is to enlighten the jury and to help the jurors remember and interpret the evidence.” State v. Reynolds, 120 Idaho 445, 450 , 816 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Ct. App. 1991).

2025“The purpose of the prosecutor’s closing argument, not unlike that of the defense in this regard, is to enlighten the jury and to help the jurors remember and interpret the evidence.” State v. Reynolds, 120 Idaho 445, 450 , 816 P.2d 1002, 1007 (Ct. App. 1991).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Mark Lankford green
idaho · 2017
2 sentences

2019The first step in a prosecutorial misconduct analysis "is to determine whether the alleged conduct actually rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct." Lankford , 162 Idaho at 494 , 399 P.3d at 821 .

2019The first step in a prosecutorial misconduct analysis "is to determine whether the alleged conduct actually rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct." Lankford , 162 Idaho at 494 , 399 P.3d at 821 .

32010–2019
State v. Bernal green
idaho · 2018
2 sentences

2019This Court has said, "[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State 'attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.' " Bernal , 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386 , 440, 348 P.3d 1 , 55 (2015) ). "[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics." Id. (quoting State v. Moses , 156 Idaho 855 , 871, 332 P.3d 767 , 783 (2014) ).

2010This Court has said, “[p]rosecutorial misconduct occurs when the State ‘attempts to secure a verdict on any factor other than the law as set forth in the jury instructions and the evidence admitted at trial, including reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence.’” Bernal, 164 Idaho at 196, 427 P.3d at 7 (quoting State v. Abdullah, 158 Idaho 386, 440 , 348 P.3d 1, 55 (2015)). “[T]he prosecutor has a duty to avoid misrepresentation of the facts and unnecessarily inflammatory tactics.” Id. (quoting State v. Moses, 156 Idaho 855, 871 , 332 P.3d 767, 783 (2014)).

22010–2019

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 49-1404 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 175 (1985–2026) CA 79 (1973–2026) KS 69 (2001–2025) IN 25 (1996–2025) OH 18 (1992–2026) UT 18 (1992–2024) IA 17 (1986–2026) PA 15 (2012–2025) NM 12 (2009–2024) CT 11 (1995–2017) TX 10 (2012–2025) CO 10 (2017–2026) WY 8 (1998–2025) NV 7 (1986–2021) ID 6 (2010–2025) MI 6 (2008–2025) MN 6 (2001–2019) AZ 6 (1998–2025) DE 6 (2014–2026) TN 6 (1999–2020) IL 5 (2020–2022) HI 4 (2003–2025) OK 4 (2006–2023) FL 3 (2006–2017) SD 3 (2014–2026) NE 2 (2016–2018) VI 2 (2011–2014) AR 2 (2000–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check