Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-403 (2026)
Misdemeanors.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Misdemeanors.
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a prosecution for any misdemeanor must be commenced by the filing of the complaint or the finding of an indictment within one (1) year after its commission.
(2) A prosecution for failure to report or failure to cause to be reported the abuse, abandonment, or neglect of a child as provided for in section 16-1605, Idaho Code, must be commenced by the filing of the complaint or the finding of an indictment within four (4) years after its commission.
(3) A prosecution for misuse of funds as provided for in section 18-5702(1), Idaho Code, must be commenced by the filing of the complaint or the finding of an indictment within five (5) years after its commission.
(4) A prosecution for a misdemeanor that was dismissed pursuant to section 19-3509, Idaho Code, must be refiled no later than two (2) years after its dismissal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: State v. Rae, 84 P.3d 586 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Rae, 84 P.3d 586 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). “I.C. § 19-403. The event giving rise to this prosecution took place on or about October 27, 2000.”
State v. Morris, 340 P.2d 447 (Idaho 1959). “e single issue involved: “Is it necessary in filing an Information to anticipate a defense of the statute of limitations and negative this defense by setting forth facts which avoid the statute or show that the statute was complied with where the files and records of the case…”
Judy Charney v. Dennis Charney, 356 P.3d 355 (Idaho 2015). “§ 18-1801, and the statute of limitations for that misdemeanor is one year from the date of its commission, I.C. § 19-403(1). Therefore, absent legislative action, we hold that a criminal contempt sanction cannot be imposed for contempt unless the contempt proceedings are…”
State v. Andrew Garcia, 355 P.3d 635 (Idaho 2015). “If the State seeks criminal sanctions, Garcia would be entitled to advance a defense based upon the one-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 19-403(1). Cha rney v. Charney, No.”
State v. Luis Adame Juarez, 356 P.3d 384 (Idaho 2015). “Operating from the premise that the magistrate court meant what it said when it characterized the proceedings as misdemean- or criminal contempt proceedings, we think it is important to note a number of concerns that we have regarding what transpired below.”
Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State (Idaho 2025). “Accordingly, Carelon has not demonstrated that is under a credible threat of prosecution for any conduct proscribed by section 67-9230(8). Therefore, Carelon lacks standing to challenge the criminal component of this statute and this issue is moot.”
State v. Andrew Garcia (Idaho 2015). “If the State seeks criminal sanctions, Garcia would be entitled to advance a defense based upon the one-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 19-403(1). Charney v. Charney, No.”
— Idaho Code § 19-403(1) — 5 cases
Judy Charney v. Dennis Charney, 356 P.3d 355 (Idaho 2015). “§ 18-1801, and the statute of limitations for that misdemeanor is one year from the date of its commission, I.C. § 19-403(1). Therefore, absent legislative action, we hold that a criminal contempt sanction cannot be imposed for contempt unless the contempt proceedings are…”
State v. Andrew Garcia, 355 P.3d 635 (Idaho 2015). “If the State seeks criminal sanctions, Garcia would be entitled to advance a defense based upon the one-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 19-403(1). Cha rney v. Charney, No.”
State v. Luis Adame Juarez, 356 P.3d 384 (Idaho 2015). “Operating from the premise that the magistrate court meant what it said when it characterized the proceedings as misdemean- or criminal contempt proceedings, we think it is important to note a number of concerns that we have regarding what transpired below.”
Carelon Behavioral Health, Inc. v. State (Idaho 2025). “Accordingly, Carelon has not demonstrated that is under a credible threat of prosecution for any conduct proscribed by section 67-9230(8). Therefore, Carelon lacks standing to challenge the criminal component of this statute and this issue is moot.”
State v. Andrew Garcia (Idaho 2015). “If the State seeks criminal sanctions, Garcia would be entitled to advance a defense based upon the one-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho Code section 19-403(1). Charney v. Charney, No.”
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.