5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Pettersongreen2 sentences2009The right to offer testimony is grounded in the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause, and the Sixth Amendment can be violated by imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. 2 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 810 (1988); State v. Harris, 132 Idaho 843, 846 , 979 P.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). 2002Taylor, 484 U.S. at 409 , 108 S.Ct. at 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d at 810 ; Harris, 132 Idaho at 846 , 979 P.2d at 1204 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2009The right to offer testimony is grounded in the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause, and the Sixth Amendment can be violated by imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. 2 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 810 (1988); State v. Harris, 132 Idaho 843, 846 , 979 P.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). 2009The right to offer testimony is grounded in the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause, and the Sixth Amendment can be violated by imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. 2 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 810 (1988); State v. Harris, 132 Idaho 843, 846 , 979 P.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). | 2 | 3 |
Rome v. Stategreen1 sentence2020As the Idaho Supreme Court stated in Rome v. State, 164 Idaho 407 , 417, 431 P.3d 242, 252 (2018): [I]f accessory after the fact is not a lesser-included offense of [the crimes charged], then accessory after the fact would remain a separate crime, thereby causing Rome’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to fail. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2009The right to offer testimony is grounded in the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause, and the Sixth Amendment can be violated by imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. 2 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 810 (1988); State v. Harris, 132 Idaho 843, 846 , 979 P.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). 2009The right to offer testimony is grounded in the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause, and the Sixth Amendment can be violated by imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. 2 Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 , 108 S.Ct. 646, 653 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798, 810 (1988); State v. Harris, 132 Idaho 843, 846 , 979 P.2d 1201, 1204 (1999). | 4 | 1999–2009 |
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.