Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-3024 (2026)

Statements by child.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Statements by child.

Statements made by a child under the age of ten (10) years describing any act of sexual abuse, physical abuse, or other criminal conduct committed with or upon the child, although not otherwise admissible by statute or court rule, are admissible in evidence after a proper foundation has been laid in accordance with the Idaho rules of evidence in any proceedings under the child protective act, chapter 16, title 16, Idaho Code, or in any criminal proceedings in the courts of the state of Idaho if:

1. The court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient indicia of reliability; and

(2) The child either:

(a) Testifies at the proceedings; or

(b) Is unavailable as a witness. A child is unavailable as a witness when the child is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity. Provided, that when the child is unavailable as a witness, such statements may be admitted only if there is corroborative evidence of the act.

Statements may not be admitted unless the proponent of the statements notifies the adverse party of his intention to offer the statements and the particulars of the statements sufficiently in advance of the proceedings to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statements.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1988–2011 · leading case: State v. Zimmerman, 829 P.2d 861 (Idaho 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Zimmerman, 829 P.2d 861 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 36× “Based upon her reaction to the questioning, the trial court found the victim to be unable to testify in a courtroom setting, and treated her as an unavailable witness for the purposes of I.C. § 19-3024 and I.R.E. 803(24). We note that Zimmerman has not challenged this finding by…”

State v. Hester, 760 P.2d 27 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 11× “” The court later ruled that certain statements made by Brian to his mother were admissible under I.C. § 19-3024, the child *692 hearsay exception, 3 and I.”

Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990). · cites it 2× “803 (23) (1989); Idaho Code § 19-3024 (1987); Ill. Rev. Stat.”

State v. Bingham, 776 P.2d 424 (Idaho 1989). · cites it 3× “I’m going to require that you lay a proper foundation, I’m going to require that you prove to my satisfaction that the time, content and circumstances of the statements have sufficient indicia of reliability as required by Idaho Code 19-3024. We will use this hearing at this…”

State v. Howard, 248 P.3d 722 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 4× “1102, finding: The trial court should not have considered the admission of the out-of-court statements under I.C. § 19-3024. To the extent that this statute attempts to prescribe the admissibility of hearsay evidence and is in conflict with the Idaho Rules of Evidence, it is of…”

Snowden v. State, 846 A.2d 36 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004). “804(b)(6) (2003); Idaho Code § 19-3024 (2003); 725 III. Comp.”

State v. Hester, 760 P.2d 27 (Idaho 1988). · cites it 11× “" The court later ruled that certain statements made by Brian to his mother were admissible under I.C. § 19-3024, the child *31 hearsay exception, [3] and I.”

State v. Ricks, 840 P.2d 400 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “”); I.R.E. 1102 (“Statutory provisions and rules governing the admissibility of evidence, to the extent they are evidentiary and to the extent that they are in conflict with applicable rules of Idaho Rules of Evidence, are of no force or effect.”

State v. Poole, 859 P.2d 944 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 861, 863 (1992), the Court held that I.C. § 19-3024, which permits the admission of a child’s out-of-court statement of physical or sexual abuse, is invalid to the extent that it attempts to prescribe admissibility of hearsay and is in conflict with I.”

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.