Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-3702 (2026)

Immaterial errors disregarded. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Immaterial errors disregarded. 

Neither a departure from the form or mode prescribed by this code in respect to any pleading or proceeding, nor an error or mistake therein, renders it invalid, unless it has actually prejudiced the defendant, or tended to his prejudice in respect to a substantial right.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1957–2012 · leading case: State v. Walters, 813 P.2d 857 (Idaho 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Walters, 813 P.2d 857 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 8× “III. The territorial legislature of Idaho passed legislation as early as 1864 concerning the effect of error on a criminal conviction.”
State v. Hodges, 671 P.2d 1051 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 6× “" I.C. § 19-3702. Obviously, those students, now practicing attorneys, shared the view entertained by Justice Shepard when he wrote for this Court: "While the due process clauses of the Idaho Constitution, art.”
State v. Gumm, 585 P.2d 959 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 4× “Since defendant is unable to show prejudice here, I would hold the information sufficient and the testimony admissible.”
State v. McNary, 596 P.2d 417 (Idaho 1979). · cites it 4× “2d 914, 916 (1968); I.C. § 19-3702. McNary contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence over his objection State's Exhibit 2, being the zippered case and the 9 mm.”
State v. Bacon, 791 P.2d 429 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 4× “In addition, I.C. § 19-3702 provides that neither a departure from the form of a pleading, nor a mistake or error therein, renders it invalid unless actual prejudice to the defendant occurs.”
State v. Kraft, 539 P.2d 254 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 4× “§ 19-2819, I.C. § 19-3702; State v. Linebarger, 71 Idaho 255 , 232 P.”
State v. Garza, 704 P.2d 944 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “” See also I.C. § 19-3702. So long as the probable cause determination actually has been made by a neutral and detached magistrate, we fail to see how any substantial right of the accused is affected by the identity of the magistrate who signs the commitment order.”
State v. Morris, 546 P.2d 375 (Idaho 1976). · cites it 2× “2d 692 (1971); I.C. § 19-3702. It is clear then that trial counsel's failure to object to the photographic lineup procedures or introduction of evidence of the prior incident do not amount to incompetence.”
State v. Radabaugh, 471 P.2d 582 (Idaho 1970). · cites it 2× “” Also pertinent is I.C. § 19-3702: “Immaterial errors disregarded.”
State v. Ellis, 586 P.2d 1050 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 2× “See also I.C. § 19-3702. Defendant also complains that the State put on no case.”
State v. Rodriguez, 460 P.2d 711 (Idaho 1969). · cites it 2× “I.C. § 19-3702 states •’ “19-3702. Immaterial errors disregarded.”
State v. Par., 310 P.2d 1082 (Idaho 1957). · cites it 2× “" § 19-3702, I.C. That defendant was in no way prejudiced by the omission of the word "wilfully" from the information is affirmatively shown by the record.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.