Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-3506 (2026)
Effect of dismissal as bar — dismissal for diversion participant.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Effect of dismissal as bar — dismissal for diversion participant.
(1) An order for the dismissal of the action, as provided in this chapter, is a bar to any other prosecution for the same offense, if it is a misdemeanor, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section; but it is not a bar if the offense is a felony.
(2) A prosecuting attorney may move for dismissal of a misdemeanor action, and the court may order such dismissal, if the defendant agrees to participate in a diversion program pursuant to section 19-3509, Idaho Code. The action may be refiled for failure to complete the diversion program, and speedy trial shall be calculated from the date of refiling.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1959–2017 · leading case: Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977).
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977). “I.C. § 19-3506 provides the following: "19-3506.”
State v. Werneth, 611 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1980). “Although we are urged by the State to affirm the trial court on the basis of I.C. § 19-3506, we decline to do so. That statute reads as follows: “Effect of dismissal as bar.”
State v. Barlow's, Inc., 729 P.2d 433 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986). “The state raises two issues on appeal from the district court’s dismissal order: (1) Does I.C. § 19-3506 1 bar prosecution for a continuing violation of a misdemeanor law where the prosecutor has twice voluntarily dismissed prior charges of violating the same law? (2) If not,…”
State v. Davis, 118 P.3d 160 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). “I.C. § 19-3506. *842 In Docket No. 30626, the state concedes that there was no good cause to justify the delay in Davis’s original prosecution and that I.”
Rufener v. Shaud, 573 P.2d 142 (Idaho 1977). “I.C. § 19-3506; I.R.C. 5.1(b) and 48(b)(3).”
State v. Sindak, 774 P.2d 895 (Idaho 1989). “I.C. § 19-3506. HUNTLEY, Justice, dissenting.”
State v. Ruiz, 678 P.2d 1109 (Idaho 1984). “2d 142 (1977); I.C. § 19-3506; State v. Kingman Justice Precinct Ct.”
State v. Horsley, 792 P.2d 945 (Idaho 1990). “Although the majority opinion is silent on this point, it is obvious that the trial judge suggested dismissal without prejudice, and initially denied the prosecution's motion for a continuance, precisely because of I.”
State v. Averett, 136 P.3d 350 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006). “Idaho Code § 19-3506 provides: “An order for the dismissal of the action, as provided in this chapter, is a bar to any other *885 prosecution for the same offense, if it is a misdemeanor; but it is not a bar if the offense is a felony.”
State v. Fowler, 674 P.2d 432 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). “Under I.C. § 19-3506, an order for dismissal is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense, unless the offense is a felony.”
State v. Schmidt, 825 P.2d 104 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). “Schmidt argues that, following the dismissal of the citation by the magistrate division, the state can obtain only an advisory ruling but cannot prosecute the misdemeanor at trial.”
State v. Hinostroza, 759 P.2d 912 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “Dismissal of a charge, and subsequent refiling of a different charge, before trial, does not trigger the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.”
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.