Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-2017 (2026)
Challenge for cause defined.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Challenge for cause defined.
A challenge for cause may be taken by either party. It is an objection to a particular juror, and is either:
1. General–That the juror is disqualified from serving in any case; or,
2. Particular–That he is disqualified from serving in the action on trial.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1933–2015 · leading case: State v. Bitz, 460 P.2d 374 (Idaho 1969).
State v. Bitz, 460 P.2d 374 (Idaho 1969). “2d 886 (1967): "The rule in this jurisdiction is that great latitude is allowed in the examination of veniremen upon their voir dire for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient ground to challenge the veniremen for statutory cause, I.C. §§ 19-2017 to 19-2022; or…”
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015). “I.C. §§ 19-2017, -2019, -2020. The Idaho Code defines “actual bias” as “the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to either of the parties, which, in the exercise of a sound discretion on the part of *422 the trier, leads to the…”
State v. Brooks, 655 P.2d 99 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “See I.C. §§ 19-2017 19-2029; I.C.R. 24(a). Of these nine, seven were dismissed because media coverage of the Cat Man murder had convinced them Brooks was one of the four teenage boys responsible.”
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, 360 P.3d 289 (Idaho 2015). “3d 1, 36 (2015) (citing I.C. §§ 19-2017, -2019, -2020). In a capital sentencing case, jurors may be excluded due to their views on the death penalty, which result in bias.”
State v. Pontier, 518 P.2d 969 (Idaho 1974). “2d 886 (1967): "`The rule in this jurisdiction is that great latitude is allowed in the examination of veniremen upon their voir dire for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient ground to challenge the veniremen for statutory cause, I.C. §§ 19-2017 to 19-2022, or…”
State v. Brown, 26 P.2d 131 (Idaho 1933). “” (Section 19-2017, Idaho Code Annotated.) All instructions must be considered and construed together, and if the instructions, as a whole, correctly state the law, the judgment will be affirmed.”
State v. Swenor, 528 P.2d 671 (Idaho 1974). “(Section 19-2017, Idaho Code Annotated.) Under said section corroborating testimony need only tend to connect the defendant with the crime.”
State v. McKeehan, 430 P.2d 886 (Idaho 1967). “The rule in this jurisdiction is that great latitude is allowed in the examination of veniremen upon their voir dire for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient ground to challenge the veniremen for statutory cause, I.”
State v. Orr, 24 P.2d 679 (Idaho 1933). “Doctor Magee testified that in the afternoon of the day of the crime he examined Orr and found many injuries, indicating that they had been received in the course of the preceding twenty-four hours. Benjamin also testified with reference to the blackjack, that Orr had it and…”
Mattson v. Bryan, 448 P.2d 201 (Idaho 1968). “This Court in holding that such ruling did not constitute reversible error, stated: “The rule in this jurisdiction is that great latitude is allowed in the examination of veniremen upon their voir dire for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient ground to…”
State v. Evans, 631 P.2d 1220 (Idaho 1981). “, § 19-2017.]” The degree of corroboration necessary to comply with the statute was announced in State v.”
State v. Mundell, 158 P.2d 799 (Idaho 1945). “) Section 19-2017,1.C.A., provides: “A conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence, which in itself, and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the *350 commission of the…”
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.