cost of presentence investigation.
If a court orders a presentence investigation to be conducted, the court shall order the defendant to pay an amount to be determined by the department of correction, not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), of the cost of conducting the presentence investigation and preparing the presentence investigation report. Such court orders shall be included in the judgment. Any such amount to be paid by the defendant shall be determined by the department of correction and shall be based on the defendant’s ability to pay. In determining a defendant’s ability to pay, the department of correction may consider such factors as the defendant’s income, property owned, outstanding obligations and the number and ages of dependents. Such payments shall be made to the department of correction and will be placed in the probation and parole receipts account created pursuant to section 20-225A, Idaho Code, and utilized as reimbursement for the cost of conducting the presentence investigation and preparing the presentence investigation report. Moneys in the probation and parole receipts account may be expended only after appropriation by the legislature.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases, 1953–2002 · leading case:
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990).
Stuart v. State, 801 P.2d 1216 (Idaho 1990).
· cites it 104× “(emphasis added) Idaho Code 19-2516 provides as follows: INQUIRY INTO CIRCUMSTANCES EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.”
State v. Creech, 670 P.2d 463 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 54× “II Idaho Code § 19-2516 requires that the hearing to determine aggravating and mitigating *479 circumstances during the sentencing process must be presented by the testimony of live witnesses, that section reading in pertinent part: "The circumstances must be presented by the…”
State v. Osborn, 631 P.2d 187 (Idaho 1981).
· cites it 36× “ The circumstances must be presented by the testimony of witnesses examined in open court, except that when a witness is so sick or infirm as to be unable to attend, his deposition may be taken by a magistrate of the county, out of court, upon such notice to the adverse party…”
State v. Coutts, 609 P.2d 642 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 63× “Enactment of this statute of necessity relaxed the strict requirements of I.C. § 19-2516, otherwise there would be no point in submitting a written report to the court, for the material therein would have had to be submitted by the testimony of witnesses.”
State v. Charboneau, 774 P.2d 299 (Idaho 1989).
· cites it 14× “” I.C. § 19-2516 states: The circumstances [in aggravation or mitigation of punishment] must be presented by the testimony of witnesses examined in open court, except that when a witness is so sick or infirm as to be unable to attend, his deposition may be taken by a magistrate…”
State v. Paz, 798 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1990).
· cites it 12× “We note that the Idaho Rules of Evidence, except those with respect to privileges, do not apply to sentencing proceedings. I.R.E. 101(e)(3).”
State v. Sivak, 806 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1990).
· cites it 12× “This Court's opinion noted that the presentation of sentencing evidence by live testimony had been demanded pursuant to I.C. § 19-2516, and also observed that the father's testimony in court, fully subject to cross-examination, "did not cure the hearsay nature of the statements…”
State v. Sivak, 901 P.2d 494 (Idaho 1995).
· cites it 9× “32(e); and that the district court erred in relying upon the transcript rather than requiring Bainbridge to testify at the sentencing hearing, in violation of I.C. § 19-2516. First, as to Sivak’s argument that the inclusion of the statement of Bainbridge in the presentence…”
State v. Paradis, 676 P.2d 31 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 4× “The trial court took judicial notice of the testimony because of its ruling that appellant had "agreed to consideration *41 of such testimony and to dispense with formal application of I.C. § 19-2516... ." We find no error in the trial court's ruling on this issue, considering…”
State v. Cootz, 718 P.2d 1245 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 5× “Cootz claims that it was error for the court to consider the report because he requested a formal sentencing hearing pursuant to I.C. § 19-2516. This statute operates in conjunction with I.”
State v. Owen, 253 P.2d 203 (Idaho 1953).
· cites it 4× “And § 19-2516, I.C., requires that the hearing be had in open court.”
State v. Newman, 860 P.2d 618 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 8× “On appeal, Coutts asserted that the prosecutor's reference to the alleged incidents was a presentation of unsworn evidence contrary to I.C. §§ 19-2515(a) and 19-2516. [1] This Court denied Coutts's appeal, holding that: [I]n the absence of an explicit request for the formal…”
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.