Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-1418 (2026)

Sufficiency of indictment. 

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

Sufficiency of indictment. 

The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom:

1.  That it is entitled in a court having authority to receive it, though the name of the court be not stated.
2.  That it was found by a grand jury of the county in which the court was held.
3.  That the defendant is named, or, if his name cannot be discovered that he is described by a fictitious name, with a statement that his true name is to the jury unknown.
4.  That the offense was committed at some place within the jurisdiction of the court, except where the act, though done without the local jurisdiction of the county, is triable therein.
5.  That the offense was committed at some time prior to the time of finding the indictment.
6.  That the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and distinctly set forth in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.
7.  That the act or omission charged as the offense is stated with such a degree of certainty as to enable the court to pronounce judgment upon conviction, according to the right of the case.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1965–2016 · leading case: State v. Severson, 215 P.3d 414 (Idaho 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Severson, 215 P.3d 414 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 19-1409(2) (stating that the indictment must contain "[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language"); I.C. § 19-1418(6) & (7) (stating that an indictment is sufficient if "the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and…”
State v. Jones, 101 P.3d 699 (Idaho 2004). · cites it 2× “2d 347, 349-50 (1965); see I.C. § 19-1418. Although such due process concerns may be valid, they are waived unless raised before trial.”
State v. Bullis, 472 P.2d 315 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-1418 sets out the requisites for a sufficient indictment: “19-1418.”
State v. Grady, 404 P.2d 347 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 19-1418, provides that an indictment or in *209 formation is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom, among other items set out, the following: “6.”
State v. Polson, 448 P.2d 229 (Idaho 1968). · cites it 2× “Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the state to call Carl Holm as a witness and, in the presence of the jury, extract from him a refusal to testify on the ground that his testimony would tend to incriminate him; also the action of the court in permitting…”
State v. Mowrey, 429 P.2d 425 (Idaho 1967). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 19-1418 provides, in part, as follows: .”
State v. Alden Lamar Hoagland, Jr., 382 P.3d 369 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code Section 19-1418(4) requires that an indictment state that an offense was committed at some place within the court’s jurisdiction.”
State v. Shannon, 507 P.2d 808 (Idaho 1973). “§ 19-1418 which provides; in part, as follows : “The indictment is sufficient if it can be understood therefrom: * * * 4.”
Joshua v. Hauser v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Specifically, he asserts that the criminal information failed to list the ages of his victims, and thus failed to give him adequate notice.”
State v. Denton, 766 P.2d 1283 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 19-1418 (6) provides that the charge must be described in “ordinary and concise language,” and I.”
— Idaho Code § 19-1418(4) — 1 case
State v. Alden Lamar Hoagland, Jr., 382 P.3d 369 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). “Idaho Code Section 19-1418(4) requires that an indictment state that an offense was committed at some place within the court’s jurisdiction.”
— Idaho Code § 19-1418(6) — 2 cases
State v. Severson, 215 P.3d 414 (Idaho 2009). “§ 19-1409(2) (stating that the indictment must contain "[a] statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language"); I.C. § 19-1418(6) & (7) (stating that an indictment is sufficient if "the act or omission charged as the offense is clearly and…”
Joshua v. Hauser v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). “Specifically, he asserts that the criminal information failed to list the ages of his victims, and thus failed to give him adequate notice.”
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.