Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-2515 (2026)

Sentence in capital cases — Special sentencing proceeding — Statutory aggravating circumstances — Special verdict or written findings. [effective until January 1, 2027] 

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sentence in capital cases — Special sentencing proceeding — Statutory aggravating circumstances — Special verdict or written findings. [effective until January 1, 2027] 

(1) Except as provided in section 19-2515A, Idaho Code, a person convicted of murder in the first degree or aggravated lewd conduct with a minor child twelve (12) years of age or under shall be liable for the imposition of the penalty of death if such person killed, intended a killing, or acted with reckless indifference to human life, irrespective of whether such person directly committed the acts that caused death or the aggravated lewd conduct.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 183 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1951–2025 · leading case: State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 362× “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 180× “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 176× “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 154× “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 114× “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 62× “Idaho Code § 19-2515 (5)(d) goes on to state that "[a]t the special sentencing proceeding, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 68× “" Consequently no issue under *1224 Charboneau and no violation of I.C. § 19-2515 has occurred in this case.”
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 87× “Prior to the sentencing hearings, the second defense attorney filed a motion “for a formal sentencing hearing in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 19-2515 , 19-2516, and that the defendant be afforded all of the rights, both procedural and substantive, therein…”
State v. Dunlap, 873 P.2d 784 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 142× “The sentencing hearing was held on March 31, 1992, and on April 19, 1992, the district court filed its "Findings of the Court in Considering Death Penalty under Idaho Code § 19-2515 and Imposition of Sentence," sentencing Dunlap to death.”
State v. Wood, 967 P.2d 702 (Idaho 1998). · cites it 106× “2d 680 (1991) (determining that I.C. § 19-2515 does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution), overruled on other grounds by State v.”
State v. Sivak, 674 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 74× “Statutory Aggravating Circumstances The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that two of the statutory circumstances set forth in Idaho Code, § 19-2515 *408 exist. The murder was, in the opinion of the court, `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional…”
State v. Pratt, 873 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 88× “The Sentencing Phase: On November 27, 1989, the court issued its I.C. § 19-2515 findings. In its findings, the court discussed the general criminal conduct involved and Pratt's character, both of which it deemed to be "neither aggravating nor mitigating," and it identified…”
Show all 183 citing cases →
Idaho Code § 19-2515(1): 2 cases
Booth v. State, 262 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2011).
Trevor James Booth v. State (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(2): 1 case
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(3): 4 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, 360 P.3d 289 (Idaho 2015).
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, No. 41105 (Idaho Nov. 2, 2015).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(3)(a): 1 case
Trevor James Booth v. State (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(3)(b): 4 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015).
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, 360 P.3d 289 (Idaho 2015).
State v. Peregrina, 261 P.3d 815 (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(5): 3 cases
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
Booth v. State, 262 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2011).
Trevor James Booth v. State (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(5)(a): 4 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 (5)(d) goes on to state that "[a]t the special sentencing proceeding, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation.”
State v. Woodrow John Grant, 297 P.3d 244 (Idaho 2013).
State v. Robert Cassidy Hansen, 321 P.3d 719 (Idaho 2014).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(5)(c): 2 cases
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 (5)(d) goes on to state that "[a]t the special sentencing proceeding, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation.”
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(6): 1 case
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(7): 3 cases
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015).
Booth v. State, 262 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2011).
Trevor James Booth v. State (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(7)(b): 3 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
Dale Carter Shackelford v. State, 372 P.3d 372 (Idaho 2016).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(7)(c): 2 cases
Dale Carter Shackelford v. State, 372 P.3d 372 (Idaho 2016).
State v. Eric Thomas Ferrier (Idaho Ct. App. 2012).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(8): 4 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 (5)(d) goes on to state that "[a]t the special sentencing proceeding, the state and the defendant shall be entitled to present all relevant evidence in aggravation and mitigation.”
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap, 313 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2013).
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(8)(a): 2 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap, 313 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(8)(a)(i): 1 case
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(8)(a)(ii): 2 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(8)(b)(i): 1 case
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9): 6 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Booth v. State, 262 P.3d 255 (Idaho 2011).
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015).
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, 360 P.3d 289 (Idaho 2015).
Trevor James Booth v. State (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(b): 1 case
State v. Dale Carter Shackelford (Idaho 2010).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(e): 1 case
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(f): 3 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(g): 3 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap, 313 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2013).
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(h): 2 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(9)(i): 4 cases
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap, 313 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2013).
State v. Carson, 264 P.3d 54 (Idaho 2011).
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlap (Idaho 2013).
Timothy Alan Dunlap v. State, No. 41105 (Idaho Nov. 2, 2015).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(A): 1 case
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(C): 2 cases
State v. Hoffman, 851 P.2d 934 (Idaho 1993).
State v. Sivak, 806 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1990).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(G)(5): 2 cases
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989). “Prior to the sentencing hearings, the second defense attorney filed a motion “for a formal sentencing hearing in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 19-2515 , 19-2516, and that the defendant be afforded all of the rights, both procedural and substantive, therein…”
State v. Fain, 774 P.2d 252 (Idaho 1989).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(a): 8 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Cotton, 602 P.2d 71 (Idaho 1979).
State v. Coutts, 609 P.2d 642 (Idaho 1980).
State v. Newman, 860 P.2d 618 (Idaho 1993).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(b): 4 cases
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Windsor, 716 P.2d 1182 (Idaho 1985).
State v. Osborn, 663 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1983).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(c): 31 cases
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Sivak, 806 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1990).
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
Fetterly v. State, 825 P.2d 1073 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(d): 19 cases
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). “" Consequently no issue under *1224 Charboneau and no violation of I.C. § 19-2515 has occurred in this case.”
State v. Osborn, 663 P.2d 1111 (Idaho 1983).
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Paz, 798 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1990).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(e): 9 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). “" Consequently no issue under *1224 Charboneau and no violation of I.C. § 19-2515 has occurred in this case.”
State v. Pratt, 873 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1993). “The Sentencing Phase: On November 27, 1989, the court issued its I.C. § 19-2515 findings. In its findings, the court discussed the general criminal conduct involved and Pratt's character, both of which it deemed to be "neither aggravating nor mitigating," and it identified…”
State v. Porter, 948 P.2d 127 (Idaho 1997).
Sivak v. State, 731 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1986).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f): 12 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Sivak, 674 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1983). “Statutory Aggravating Circumstances The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that two of the statutory circumstances set forth in Idaho Code, § 19-2515 *408 exist. The murder was, in the opinion of the court, `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). “" Consequently no issue under *1224 Charboneau and no violation of I.C. § 19-2515 has occurred in this case.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(10): 1 case
State v. Paradis, 676 P.2d 31 (Idaho 1983).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(2): 6 cases
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Caudill, 706 P.2d 456 (Idaho 1985).
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989). “Prior to the sentencing hearings, the second defense attorney filed a motion “for a formal sentencing hearing in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 19-2515 , 19-2516, and that the defendant be afforded all of the rights, both procedural and substantive, therein…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(3): 3 cases
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(4): 4 cases
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Caudill, 706 P.2d 456 (Idaho 1985).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(5): 6 cases
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Sivak, 674 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1983). “Statutory Aggravating Circumstances The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that two of the statutory circumstances set forth in Idaho Code, § 19-2515 *408 exist. The murder was, in the opinion of the court, `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional…”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Aragon, 690 P.2d 293 (Idaho 1984).
State v. Stuart, 715 P.2d 833 (Idaho 1986).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(6): 8 cases
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
State v. Caudill, 706 P.2d 456 (Idaho 1985).
State v. Aragon, 690 P.2d 293 (Idaho 1984).
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(f)(8): 8 cases
State v. Sivak, 674 P.2d 396 (Idaho 1983). “Statutory Aggravating Circumstances The court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that two of the statutory circumstances set forth in Idaho Code, § 19-2515 *408 exist. The murder was, in the opinion of the court, `especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional…”
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990). “" Consequently no issue under *1224 Charboneau and no violation of I.C. § 19-2515 has occurred in this case.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983). “§ 19-2515 provides in pertinent part: "(a) After a plea or verdict of guilty, where a discretion is conferred upon the court as to the extent of the punishment, the court, upon the oral or written suggestion of either party that there are circumstances which may be properly…”
Sivak v. State, 731 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1986).
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981). “I.C. § 19-2515. This hearing was held on June 21, 1979, and the matter of sentencing was taken under advisement.”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g): 21 cases
Sivak v. State, 731 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1986).
State v. Lankford, 781 P.2d 197 (Idaho 1989).
State v. Fain, 774 P.2d 252 (Idaho 1989).
State v. Paz, 798 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1990).
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989). “Prior to the sentencing hearings, the second defense attorney filed a motion “for a formal sentencing hearing in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 19-2515 , 19-2516, and that the defendant be afforded all of the rights, both procedural and substantive, therein…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(10): 2 cases
State v. Hoffman, 851 P.2d 934 (Idaho 1993).
State v. Wages, 810 P.2d 272 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(2): 7 cases
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Lankford, 781 P.2d 197 (Idaho 1989).
Sivak v. State, 731 P.2d 192 (Idaho 1986).
State v. Row, 955 P.2d 1082 (Idaho 1998).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(3): 2 cases
Paz v. State, 852 P.2d 1355 (Idaho 1993).
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(4): 1 case
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(5): 16 cases
State v. Leavitt, 822 P.2d 523 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Fain, 774 P.2d 252 (Idaho 1989).
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989). “Prior to the sentencing hearings, the second defense attorney filed a motion “for a formal sentencing hearing in accordance with the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 19-2515 , 19-2516, and that the defendant be afforded all of the rights, both procedural and substantive, therein…”
State v. Hoffman, 851 P.2d 934 (Idaho 1993).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(6): 9 cases
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “§ 19-2827, Card raises many issues on appeal including the constitutionality of the legislative abolishment of the insanity defense, the constitutionality of the "utter disregard for human life" language contained in I.C. § 19-2515, the limitation on post-conviction relief…”
State v. Wood, 967 P.2d 702 (Idaho 1998). “2d 680 (1991) (determining that I.C. § 19-2515 does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution), overruled on other grounds by State v.”
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Fields, 908 P.2d 1211 (Idaho 1995).
State v. Fain, 774 P.2d 252 (Idaho 1989).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(7): 9 cases
State v. Dunlap, 873 P.2d 784 (Idaho 1993). “The sentencing hearing was held on March 31, 1992, and on April 19, 1992, the district court filed its "Findings of the Court in Considering Death Penalty under Idaho Code § 19-2515 and Imposition of Sentence," sentencing Dunlap to death.”
State v. Wood, 967 P.2d 702 (Idaho 1998). “2d 680 (1991) (determining that I.C. § 19-2515 does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution), overruled on other grounds by State v.”
State v. Scroggins, 716 P.2d 1152 (Idaho 1986).
State v. Pratt, 873 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1993). “The Sentencing Phase: On November 27, 1989, the court issued its I.C. § 19-2515 findings. In its findings, the court discussed the general criminal conduct involved and Pratt's character, both of which it deemed to be "neither aggravating nor mitigating," and it identified…”
State v. Fields, 908 P.2d 1211 (Idaho 1995).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(8): 5 cases
State v. Dunlap, 873 P.2d 784 (Idaho 1993). “The sentencing hearing was held on March 31, 1992, and on April 19, 1992, the district court filed its "Findings of the Court in Considering Death Penalty under Idaho Code § 19-2515 and Imposition of Sentence," sentencing Dunlap to death.”
State v. Pizzuto, 810 P.2d 680 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 19-2515 allows flexibility in sentencing by allowing the sentencer to consider all relevant mitigating evidence without limiting the mitigating factors that may be considered.”
State v. Wood, 967 P.2d 702 (Idaho 1998). “2d 680 (1991) (determining that I.C. § 19-2515 does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution), overruled on other grounds by State v.”
State v. Fields, 908 P.2d 1211 (Idaho 1995).
State v. Wells, 864 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1993).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(g)(9): 1 case
State v. Reynolds, 457 N.W.2d 405 (Neb. 1990).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h): 7 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “aggravator in I.C. § 19-2515 duplicates an element of first degree murder in I.”
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015).
State v. Creech, 966 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1998).
State v. Porter, 948 P.2d 127 (Idaho 1997).
State v. Yager, 85 P.3d 656 (Idaho 2004).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(10): 2 cases
State v. Shackelford, 247 P.3d 582 (Idaho 2010).
State v. Dale Carter Shackelford (Idaho 2010).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(2): 3 cases
State v. Shackelford, 247 P.3d 582 (Idaho 2010).
State v. Hairston, 988 P.2d 1170 (Idaho 1999).
State v. Dale Carter Shackelford (Idaho 2010).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(5): 3 cases
Maxwell Hoffman v. A.J. Arave, 236 F.3d 523 (9th Cir. 2001).
Hoffman v. Arave, 73 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Idaho 1998).
State v. Porter, 948 P.2d 127 (Idaho 1997).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(6): 3 cases
State v. Hairston, 988 P.2d 1170 (Idaho 1999).
State v. Creech, 966 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1998).
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(7): 3 cases
State v. Wood, 967 P.2d 702 (Idaho 1998). “2d 680 (1991) (determining that I.C. § 19-2515 does not violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article I, § 6 of the Idaho Constitution), overruled on other grounds by State v.”
State v. Lovelace, 90 P.3d 298 (Idaho 2004).
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(8): 2 cases
State v. Creech, 966 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1998).
State v. Hairston, 988 P.2d 1170 (Idaho 1999).
Idaho Code § 19-2515(h)(9): 1 case
State v. Yager, 85 P.3d 656 (Idaho 2004).
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.