Use of telecommunication to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, or offend by lewd or profane language, requests, suggestions, or proposals — Threats of physical harm — Disturbing the peace by repeated telecommunication — Penalties.
(1) Any person who, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, or offend, contacts another via telecommunication, email, text message, or any other form of electronic communication and (a) addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd, or profane language, or makes any request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent; or (b) addresses to such other person any threat to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his family, or any other person; or (c) by repeated anonymous or identified telecommunications, emails, text messages, or any other form of electronic communication whether or not conversation ensues, disturbs the peace or attempts to disturb the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telecommunication, email, text message, or any other form of electronic communication is received is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to a term of not to exceed one (1) year in the county jail. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced to a term of not to exceed five (5) years in the state penitentiary.
(2) The use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or the making of a threat or obscene proposal, or the sending of repeated anonymous telecommunications, emails, text messages, or any other form of electronic communication as set forth in this section may be prima facie evidence of intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, or offend.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the term "telecommunication" shall mean the transmission of messages, signals, facsimiles, video images, or other communication between persons who are physically separated from each other by means of telephone, telegraph, cable, wire, or the projection of energy without physical connection.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Richards, 896 P.2d 357 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Richards, 896 P.2d 357 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 38× “This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction following a guilty plea for violation of Idaho’s telephone harassment statute, I.C. § 18-6710. The appellant contends that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.”
State v. Adams, 67 P.3d 103 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 30× “In Richards , the appellant argued Idaho’s telephone harassment statute, Idaho Code § 18-6710 , was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
State v. McCabe, 620 P.2d 300 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 4× “I add that a postmortem review of Sima causes me to believe that this Court was in error in failing to observe that Sima with particularity stated in his notice of appeal that he was not furnishing a transcript of the trial testimony, preferring to restrict his appeal to a…”
State v. Danson, 747 P.2d 768 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 18-6710 provides: Every person who, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend, telephones another and (a) addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd or profane language, or makes any request, suggestion or proposal which is…”
State v. Dugan, 2013 MT 38 (Mont. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Idaho Code § 18-6710 (2) (2012). 44 violating the statute “must be shown to have formulated the specific harmful intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend in order to be guilty, they cannot be heard to complain that they did not understand the mental…”
State v. Sima, 570 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1977).
· cites it 2× “This is an appeal from Francis Sima’s conviction for violation of I.C. § 18-6710, making repeated anonymous telephone calls with the intent to annoy.”
State v. Mercer, 138 P.3d 323 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Idaho Code § 18-6710 (1) states, in relevant part: Every person who, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend, telephones another and (a) addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd or profane language, or makes any request, suggestion or…”
State v. Cartwright, 487 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021).
· cites it 2× “2d at 362 (quoting I.C. § 18-6710(1)). According to the Richards court, while a phone call is constitutionally protected conduct, a phone call made with the intent to harass is not.”
State v. Harris, 942 P.2d 568 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “We conclude that the totality of these facts gave Officer Markle a reasonable suspicion that Harris was the person placing the calls to Miller and that the calls violated a statute prohibiting the use of a telephone to annoy or harass, I.”
State v. Vandyke (Idaho Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 8× “Idaho Code § 18-6710 . The matter proceeded to a jury trial and the jury found Vandyke guilty.”
State v. Frank C. Alesi (Idaho Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 18-6710 . The district court sentenced Alesi to a unified sentence of five years with two years determinate for the first count and a consecutive sentence of five years indeterminate for the second count.”
— Idaho Code § 18-6710(1) — 2 cases
State v. Cartwright, 487 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021).
“2d at 362 (quoting I.C. § 18-6710(1)). According to the Richards court, while a phone call is constitutionally protected conduct, a phone call made with the intent to harass is not.”
State v. Mercer, 138 P.3d 323 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005).
“Idaho Code § 18-6710 (1) states, in relevant part: Every person who, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass or offend, telephones another and (a) addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd or profane language, or makes any request, suggestion or…”
— Idaho Code § 18-6710(2) — 1 case
State v. Adams, 67 P.3d 103 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003).
“In Richards , the appellant argued Idaho’s telephone harassment statute, Idaho Code § 18-6710 , was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.”
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.