Preliminary examination.
The magistrate shall conduct a preliminary examination unless the same is waived by the defendant. At such preliminary examination, the magistrate shall first read the complaint to the defendant unless the defendant waives such reading, and it shall be the duty of the magistrate at such examination to determine whether or not a public offense has been committed and whether or not there is probable or sufficient cause to believe that the defendant committed such public offense. Once commenced, the examination must be completed at one (1) session unless the magistrate for good cause shown by court order postpones it, or unless the parties stipulate in writing or upon the court record to a continuance to a date certain. If the defendant is incarcerated, the postponement or continuance cannot be for more than six (6) days or, if the defendant is not incarcerated, for more than twenty (20) days, unless on motion by or with the consent of the defendant the court orders a longer continuance or postponement.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
State v. Edmonson, 743 P.2d 459 (Idaho 1987).
State v. Edmonson, 743 P.2d 459 (Idaho 1987).
· cites it 8× “However, the rights afforded the accused in these proceedings are different. A proceeding initiated by information entitles the accused the right to a preliminary hearing before an impartial magistrate to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable…”
State v. Windsor, 716 P.2d 1182 (Idaho 1985).
· cites it 4× “Nine short years ago a unanimous Court, which included Justices Bakes, Donaldson and Shepard, but not myself or Justice Huntley, wrote: We are constrained to dispose of the instant action on the following ground.”
State v. Jeske, 436 P.3d 683 (Idaho 2019).
· cites it 2× “I, § 8 ; I.C. § 19-804 ; I.C.R. 5.1. Where an information is .”
State v. Mitchell, 660 P.2d 1336 (Idaho 1983).
· cites it 4× “Appellant alleges that the magistrate court relied exclusively on the tape recorded interview in determining the existence of probable cause and that the trial court's suppression of all but the first one-third of the interrogation, which allegedly contained nothing to establish…”
State v. Pratt, 873 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1993).
· cites it 4× “2d 99, 101 (1973), citing I.C. §§ 19-804, 19-815. It is the state's burden to show that "substantial evidence," and not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, supports the two-pronged determination.”
State v. Owens, 619 P.2d 787 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 4× “2d 989 (1969); I.C. §§ 19-804 and -815. The decision of a magistrate that there exists probable cause to bind a defendant over to district court for trial on the charges should be overturned only on a showing that the committing magistrate abused his discretion.”
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977).
· cites it 4× “§ 19-815 states that the magistrate, after hearing the evidence, shall enter an order holding the defendant to answer, provided the magistrate finds that a public offense has been committed and that there is probable or sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof.”
State v. Gary L. Schall, 337 P.3d 647 (Idaho 2014).
· cites it 2× “” I.C. § 19-804 (emphasis added). Idaho law does not require that the State make an affirmative showing at the preliminary hearing that predicates for an enhancement are satisfied.”
State v. Ruddell, 546 P.2d 391 (Idaho 1976).
· cites it 4× “While the value to the defendant of the opportunity for discovery through the medium of a preliminary hearing may be an ancillary benefit, such has not risen to a status cognizable as a constitutional right.”
State v. O'mealey, 506 P.2d 99 (Idaho 1973).
· cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-804, § 19-815. As provided and authorized in I.”
State v. Stewart, 234 P.3d 707 (Idaho 2010).
· cites it 2× “I, § 8; Idaho Code § 19-804 ; Idaho Crim. R. 5.1.”
State v. Pole, 79 P.3d 729 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “See I.C. § 19-804; I.C.R. 5.1; State v. Holcomb, 128 Idaho 296, 299 , 912 P.”
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.