co-conspirator exception (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

co-conspirator exception in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2008 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Krulewitch v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1949 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2005–2008
2 sentences

2008We also note that this Court emphasized in Hams, 141 Idaho at 725 , 117 P.3d at 139 , that the scope of the co-conspirator exception is narrow, and the requirement that the conspirator’s statement be made both during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a prerequisite to admissibility that scrupulously must be observed, (citing Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 443-44 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790, 794-95 (1949)).

2008We also note that this Court emphasized in Hams, 141 Idaho at 725 , 117 P.3d at 139 , that the scope of the co-conspirator exception is narrow, and the requirement that the conspirator’s statement be made both during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a prerequisite to admissibility that scrupulously must be observed, (citing Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 443-44 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790, 794-95 (1949)).

22
State v. Harrisgreen
idahoctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008We also note that this Court emphasized in Hams, 141 Idaho at 725 , 117 P.3d at 139 , that the scope of the co-conspirator exception is narrow, and the requirement that the conspirator’s statement be made both during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a prerequisite to admissibility that scrupulously must be observed, (citing Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 443-44 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790, 794-95 (1949)).

2008We also note that this Court emphasized in Hams, 141 Idaho at 725 , 117 P.3d at 139 , that the scope of the co-conspirator exception is narrow, and the requirement that the conspirator’s statement be made both during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy is a prerequisite to admissibility that scrupulously must be observed, (citing Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 443-44 , 69 S.Ct. 716, 718-19 , 93 L.Ed. 790, 794-95 (1949)).

11
State v. Caudillgreen
idaho · 1985 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994State v. Caudill, 109 Idaho 222, 226 , 706 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

1994State v. Caudill, 109 Idaho 222, 226 , 706 P.2d 456, 460 (1985).

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brooks green
idahoctapp · 1982
2 sentences

2003Brooks, 103 Idaho at 901 , 655 P.2d at 108 .

2003Brooks, 103 Idaho at 901 , 655 P.2d at 108 .

12003–2003
United States v. Donald James and David Anthony Butler, United States of America v. Henry Smith and Kenneth Wayne Whitmore green
ca5 · 1979
1 sentence

1994This procedural process has been denominated a “James hearing” based on the holding in United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2836 , 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979).

11994–1994
Wedelstedt v. United States green
scotus · 1979
1 sentence

1994This procedural process has been denominated a “James hearing” based on the holding in United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2836 , 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979).

11994–1994
Robeson v. National Labor Relations Board green
scotus · 1979
1 sentence

1994This procedural process has been denominated a “James hearing” based on the holding in United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2836 , 61 L.Ed.2d 283 (1979).

11994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 19-2117 (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

PA 62 (1972–2025) GA 40 (1979–2022) TX 40 (1978–2024) IL 35 (1977–2020) MO 21 (1977–2024) NJ 17 (1989–2024) TN 13 (1981–2017) NC 11 (1980–2022) OH 11 (1980–2023) AK 8 (1977–1992) MD 8 (1981–2012) VA 6 (1983–2021) CO 6 (1977–1998) ID 5 (1994–2008) FL 5 (1976–2001) CA 4 (2002–2022) IN 4 (1988–1999) DC 4 (1986–2009) NY 4 (1991–2012) AZ 3 (1975–2018) SC 3 (1997–2008) MN 3 (1990–2012) OR 3 (1982–1996) HI 3 (1981–1999) IA 3 (1976–2024) KY 3 (2006–2025) WI 3 (1981–2007) NV 2 (1992–1996) KS 2 (1978–1995) SD 2 (1984–1988) AL 2 (1994–1996) NM 2 (1981–1996) NH 2 (1981–1991) OK 2 (1984–2004) LA 2 (1987–2023) WY 2 (1977–1987) MI 2 (1976–2006)

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