Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 18-4103 (2026)
General sale or distribution, etc., of obscene matter — Penalty.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
General sale or distribution, etc., of obscene matter — Penalty.
Every person in this state who knowingly: brings or causes to be brought into this state for sale or distribution; or in this state prepares for distribution, publishes, prints, exhibits, distributes, or offers to distribute; or has in his possession with intent to distribute, exhibit, or offer to distribute, any obscene matter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each sale, distribution, etc., is a separate violation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: State v. Smith, 569 P.3d 137 (Idaho 2025).
State v. Smith, 569 P.3d 137 (Idaho 2025). “At trial, the district court permitted the State to admit internet search terms found on Smith’s devices under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent and absence of mistake because the court determined the terms were relevant to Smith’s intent and the risk of unfair…”
State v. Paciorek, 51 P.3d 443 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “In chapter 41, the legislature undertook to prohibit the sale and distribution of obscene matter, I.C. § 18-4103; the advertisement or promotion for sale of matter represented to be obscene, I.”
State v. Larsen, 923 P.2d 1001 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996). “Following a jury trial, Lamar Larsen and James Carver were found guilty of two misdemeanor counts of the sale of obscene matter in violation of Idaho Code § 18-4103 . On appeal they contend that they were not permitted sufficient time to conduct jury voir dire.”
State v. Smith (Idaho 2025). “At trial, the district court permitted the State to admit internet search terms found on Smith’s devices under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent and absence of mistake because the court determined the terms were relevant to Smith’s intent and the risk of unfair…”
State v. Smith (Idaho 2025). “At trial, the district court permitted the State to admit internet search terms found on Smith’s devices under Idaho Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent and absence of mistake because the court determined the terms were relevant to Smith’s intent and the risk of unfair…”
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.