Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-114 (2026)
Union of act and intent.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Union of act and intent.
In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: State v. Stiffler, 763 P.2d 308 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Stiffler, 763 P.2d 308 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “Idaho Code § 18-114 provides that "[i]n every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence.”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “[3] In addition, those individuals who are incapable of forming the necessary intent needed for the crime are protected by the mens rea requirements of I.C. §§ 18-114, [4] 18-115 [5] and 18-207.”
State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 220 (Idaho 1990). “" I.C. § 18-114 (1987). A person is not capable of committing a crime, if the person who committed the act that is charged did so "under an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any criminal intent.”
State v. Beam, 710 P.2d 526 (Idaho 1985). “" Beam does not specify any instance in which evidence relating to his mental condition was offered and excluded by the trial court.”
State v. Fox, 866 P.2d 181 (Idaho 1993). “Fox therefore turns to I.C. § 18-114, which provides that "[i]n every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence.”
State v. Charlynda Goggin, 333 P.3d 112 (Idaho 2014). “§ 37-2732(a) — does not expressly require a mental element, Idaho Code section 18-114 provides that “[i]n every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation, of act and intent, or criminal negligence.”
State v. Searcy, 798 P.2d 914 (Idaho 1990). “The statutes in these three states, however, expressly permit evidence of mental illness or disability to be presented at trial, not in support of an independent insanity defense, but rather in order to permit the accused to rebut the state's evidence offered to prove that the…”
State v. Carsner, 894 P.2d 144 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995). “While the preferred practice would be to not give any such instruction, [1] we cannot say that it amounted to error in this case.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). “" Second, as was already highlighted: [T]he legislative abolition of intent in its alternative definition of murder by torture is clearly in conflict with the first definition, that which was properly adopted from the California Supreme Court, and also in headlong conflict with…”
State v. Curtis, 680 P.2d 1383 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). “Idaho Code § 18-114 , like § 18-4006, is of ancient vintage.”
State v. Draper, 261 P.3d 853 (Idaho 2011). “" I.C. § 18-114. He argues that a reasonable jury could have found that Draper's intent to kill, as included in the definition of premeditation, [1] was not present when he stabbed Stoddart as, he argues, he only stabbed her after Adamcik stabbed her and he did so only at…”
State v. Enno, 807 P.2d 610 (Idaho 1991). “13 [12] requires the jury to find the joint union of act and intent consistent with I.C. § 18-114 and also contains language from I.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.