Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-215 (2026)

Admissibility of statements by examined person. 

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

Admissibility of statements by examined person. 

A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric or psychological examination or treatment pursuant to sections 18-211, 18-212 or 19-2522, Idaho Code, for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence in any criminal proceeding against him on any issue other than the defendant’s ability to assist counsel at trial or to form any specific intent which is an element of the crime charged, except that such statements of a defendant to a psychiatrist or psychologist as are relevant for impeachment purposes may be received subject to the usual rules of evidence governing matters of impeachment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2006–2013 · leading case: State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 44× “Idaho Code § 18-215 provides: A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric or psychological examination or treatment pursuant to sections 18-211, 18-212 or 19-2522, Idaho Code, for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence in any…”
State v. Cope, 129 P.3d 1241 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 18-215 provides the following: A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric or psychological examination or treatment pursuant to sections 18-211, 18-212 or 19-2522, Idaho Code, for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in…”
State v. Jockumsen, 229 P.3d 1179 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Jockumsen argues that the district court violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Idaho Code § 18-215 by considering for sentencing purposes information contained in reports of psychiatrists who performed competency evaluations of Jockumsen.”
State v. Tyler Ray Carter, 307 P.3d 187 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 2× “On appeal, Carter seeks resentencing, contending that the inclusion in his PSI of psychological evaluations that were conducted solely for the purpose of determining his competence to stand trial or assist with his defense violated I.C. § 18-215 and the Fifth Amendment -to the…”
State v. Banbury, 178 P.3d 630 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Certainly, the reports available to the court here were not sufficient to address the sentencing concerns specified in that statute. Finally, in the absence of a waiver by the defendant, statements of the defendant disclosed in a competency evaluation report are not admissible…”
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008). · cites it 20× “Idaho Code § 18-215 provides: A statement made by a person subjected to psychiatric or psychological examination or treatment pursuant to sections 18-211, 18-212 or 19-2522, Idaho Code, for the purposes of such examination or treatment shall not be admissible in evidence in any…”
State v. Tyler Ray Carter (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “On appeal, Carter contends that the inclusion in his PSI of psychological evaluations that were conducted solely for the purpose of determining his competence to stand trial or assist with his defense violated Idaho Code § 18-215 and the Fifth Amendment to the United States…”
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.