Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-201 (2026)

Persons capable of committing crimes. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Persons capable of committing crimes. 

All persons are capable of committing crimes, except those belonging to the following classes:

1.  Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged, under an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any criminal intent.
2.  Persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof.
3.  Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged, through misfortune or by accident, when it appears that there was not evil design, intention or culpable negligence.
4.  Persons (unless the crime be punishable with death) who committed the act or made the omission charged, under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1957–2023 · leading case: State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 220 (Idaho 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 220 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 30× “Keller and required the trial court to give an instruction in accordance with I.C. § 18-201 advising the jury that ignorance or mistake of fact would disprove criminal intent.”
State v. Eastman, 831 P.2d 555 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 16× “DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING THE DEFENDANT'S JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON I.C. § 18-201? II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY OF THE CASE? ANALYSIS I.”
State v. Diaz, 507 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 12× ““Criminal intent” in Section 18-201 does not automatically mean “intention,” i.”
State v. Dillon, 471 P.2d 553 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 15× “§ 18-201(1) and that the jury was properly instructed when the trial court quoted I.C. § 18-201 in instruction number nine.”
Troy Dwayne Payne v. State, 367 P.3d 274 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 28× “Res Judicata In its order summarily dismissing Payne’s petition for post-conviction relief, the district court held: [T]he conclusion of the Court of Appeals in the direct appeal that the failure of the court to instruct on the defense of “misfortune or accident” under Idaho…”
State v. McNair, 108 P.3d 410 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “” In rejecting that argument, this Court stated: Idaho Code § 18-201 states that a person is incapable of committing a crime if he “committed the act .”
State v. Fox, 866 P.2d 181 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 8× “His claim is that he did not know ephedrine was illegal. In short, Fox asserts a mistake of law claim rather than a mistake of fact claim.”
State v. Stiffler, 763 P.2d 308 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 14× “) Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) further provides that no criminal responsibility shall attach to "[p]ersons who committed the act .”
Wolf v. State, 583 P.2d 1011 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 10× “Since prior to statehood, in one form or another, the legislature has enacted statutes similar to I.C. § 18-201. Until 1972 § 18-201 provided: Persons capable of committing crimes.”
State v. Blake, 985 P.2d 117 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 4× “In reaching the conclusion, the Court relied on I.C. § 18-201 which provides: PERSONS CAPABLE OF COMMITTING CRIMES.”
State v. Oar, 924 P.2d 599 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 16× “Oar primarily relies upon I.C. § 18-201(1) which provides: All persons are capable of committing crimes, except those belonging to the following classes: (1) Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged, under an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any…”
State v. Eby, 37 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “Persons (unless the crime be punishable with death) who committed the act or made the omission charged, under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused.”
Show all 54 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 18-201(1) — 7 cases
State v. Stiffler, 788 P.2d 220 (Idaho 1990). “Keller and required the trial court to give an instruction in accordance with I.C. § 18-201 advising the jury that ignorance or mistake of fact would disprove criminal intent.”
State v. Stiffler, 763 P.2d 308 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “) Idaho Code § 18-201 (1) further provides that no criminal responsibility shall attach to "[p]ersons who committed the act .”
State v. Oar, 924 P.2d 599 (Idaho 1996). “Oar primarily relies upon I.C. § 18-201(1) which provides: All persons are capable of committing crimes, except those belonging to the following classes: (1) Persons who committed the act or made the omission charged, under an ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves any…”
State v. Dillon, 471 P.2d 553 (Idaho 1970). “§ 18-201(1) and that the jury was properly instructed when the trial court quoted I.C. § 18-201 in instruction number nine.”
State v. Diaz, 507 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2022). ““Criminal intent” in Section 18-201 does not automatically mean “intention,” i.”
— Idaho Code § 18-201(2) — 2 cases
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011).
Pomrenke v. State, 497 P.3d 548 (Idaho Ct. App. 2021).
— Idaho Code § 18-201(3) — 5 cases
Troy Dwayne Payne v. State, 367 P.3d 274 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “Res Judicata In its order summarily dismissing Payne’s petition for post-conviction relief, the district court held: [T]he conclusion of the Court of Appeals in the direct appeal that the failure of the court to instruct on the defense of “misfortune or accident” under Idaho…”
State v. McNair, 108 P.3d 410 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). “” In rejecting that argument, this Court stated: Idaho Code § 18-201 states that a person is incapable of committing a crime if he “committed the act .”
State v. Dolsby, 145 P.3d 917 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
State v. MacIas, 129 P.3d 1258 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Tristum Beeks, II, 358 P.3d 784 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015).
— Idaho Code § 18-201(4) — 7 cases
State v. Eastman, 831 P.2d 555 (Idaho 1992). “DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING THE DEFENDANT'S JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON I.C. § 18-201? II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S THEORY OF THE CASE? ANALYSIS I.”
State v. Eby, 37 P.3d 625 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). “Persons (unless the crime be punishable with death) who committed the act or made the omission charged, under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they had reasonable cause to and did believe their lives would be endangered if they refused.”
State v. Kopsa, 887 P.2d 57 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).
State v. Canelo, 924 P.2d 1230 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Hawley (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).
— Idaho Code § 18-201(8) — 1 case
State v. Dillon, 471 P.2d 553 (Idaho 1970). “§ 18-201(1) and that the jury was properly instructed when the trial court quoted I.C. § 18-201 in instruction number nine.”
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.