Scroggins test in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2019 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 (11)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Scrogginsgreen idaho · 1986 · cited in 4 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2007–2019 2 sentences 2019See State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380 , 716 P.2d 1152 (1985). 2019See State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380 , 716 P.2d 1152 (1985).	3	4
State v. Griffithgreen idahoctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Excepting evidence of recantation, “[a]ny other type of new evidence presented by a defendant as an alleged basis for a new trial, including other types of proof of perjury and evidence of a recantation that has itself been subsequently disavowed by the trial witness, are subject to the Drapeau test.” Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366 , 161 P.3d at 685 (citations omitted); 19 see also Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366-67 , 924 P.2d 622, 628-29 (Ct.App.1996) (applying the Scroggins test to a newly-discovered affidavit from the witness which constituted a recantation, but applying the Drapeau test to 2011Excepting evidence of recantation, “[a]ny other type of new evidence presented by a defendant as an alleged basis for a new trial, including other types of proof of perjury and evidence of a recantation that has itself been subsequently disavowed by the trial witness, are subject to the Drapeau test.” Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366 , 161 P.3d at 685 (citations omitted); 19 see also Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366-67 , 924 P.2d 622, 628-29 (Ct.App.1996) (applying the Scroggins test to a newly-discovered affidavit from the witness which constituted a recantation, but applying the Drapeau test to	1	1
State v. Barlowgreen idahoctapp · 1987 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
State v. Priestgreen idahoctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
State v. Dunngreen idahoctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
Bean v. Stategreen idaho · 1991 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Bean v. State, 119 Idaho 632, 638 , 809 P.2d 493, 499 (1991) (citing with approval the Scroggins test for new trial based upon the 73 recantation of testimony by a witness). 2011Bean v. State, 119 Idaho 632, 638 , 809 P.2d 493, 499 (1991) (citing with approval the Scroggins test for new trial based upon the 73 recantation of testimony by a witness).	1	1
State v. Fieldsgreen idaho · 1995 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
State v. Ransomgreen idaho · 1993 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
State v. Welkergreen idahoctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to 2011Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366-67 , 161 P.3d at 685 -86 (citing State v. Fields, 127 Idaho 904, 914-15 , 908 P.2d 1211, 1221-22 (1995); State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 711-12 , 864 P.2d 149, 157-58 (1993); State v. Welker, 129 Idaho 805, 812 , 932 P.2d 928, 935 (Ct.App.1997); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366, 924 P.2d 622, 628 (Ct.App.1996); State v. Priest, 128 Idaho 6, 15-17 , 909 P.2d 624, 633-35 (Ct.App.1995); State v. Barlow, 113 Idaho 573, 577-79 , 746 P.2d 1032, 1036-38 (Ct.App.1987).) The Court of Appeals also noted that there was only one case in which the Scroggins test was applied to	1	1
Cootz v. Stategreen idahoctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Excepting evidence of recantation, “[a]ny other type of new evidence presented by a defendant as an alleged basis for a new trial, including other types of proof of perjury and evidence of a recantation that has itself been subsequently disavowed by the trial witness, are subject to the Drapeau test.” Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366 , 161 P.3d at 685 (citations omitted); 19 see also Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366-67 , 924 P.2d 622, 628-29 (Ct.App.1996) (applying the Scroggins test to a newly-discovered affidavit from the witness which constituted a recantation, but applying the Drapeau test to 2011Excepting evidence of recantation, “[a]ny other type of new evidence presented by a defendant as an alleged basis for a new trial, including other types of proof of perjury and evidence of a recantation that has itself been subsequently disavowed by the trial witness, are subject to the Drapeau test.” Griffith, 144 Idaho at 366 , 161 P.3d at 685 (citations omitted); 19 see also Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 366-67 , 924 P.2d 622, 628-29 (Ct.App.1996) (applying the Scroggins test to a newly-discovered affidavit from the witness which constituted a recantation, but applying the Drapeau test to	1	1
Larrison v. United Statesred ca7 · 1928 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Although the precise content of the Scroggins test is not entirely clear, as will be discussed below, it was initially outlined as follows: In Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.1928), the court held that where a party contends that a government witness falsely testified at trial, the following elements must be met: (1) that “[t]he court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by the material witness is false;” (2) “[t]hat without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion;” (3) “[t]hat the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false te 2007Although the precise content of the Scroggins test is not entirely clear, as will be discussed below, it was initially outlined as follows: In Larrison v. United States, 24 F.2d 82 (7th Cir.1928), the court held that where a party contends that a government witness falsely testified at trial, the following elements must be met: (1) that “[t]he court is reasonably well satisfied that the testimony given by the material witness is false;” (2) “[t]hat without it the jury might have reached a different conclusion;” (3) “[t]hat the party seeking the new trial was taken by surprise when the false te	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (2)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Mark Lankford green idaho · 2017 2 sentences 2019Id. at 493–94, 399 P.3d at 820–21. 4 The only alternative test utilized by this Court is the Scroggins test, a test implemented only when a material witness recants testimony. 2019Id. at 493–94, 399 P.3d at 820–21. 4 The only alternative test utilized by this Court is the Scroggins test, a test implemented only when a material witness recants testimony.	3	2019–2019
State v. Drapeau green idaho · 1976 2 sentences 2019Id. at 493–94, 399 P.3d at 820–21. 4 The only alternative test utilized by this Court is the Scroggins test, a test implemented only when a material witness recants testimony. 2019Id. at 493–94, 399 P.3d at 820–21. 4 The only alternative test utilized by this Court is the Scroggins test, a test implemented only when a material witness recants testimony.	3	2019–2019

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 19-2406 (5) ID § Idaho Code § 18-1507 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 18-1507A (3) ID § Idaho Code § 18-1508 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 18-1508A (3) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2514 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2520G (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

ID 5 (2007–2019) AR 2 (2005–2014) MO 2 (1993–2020)

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