Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-815 (2026)
Holding defendant to answer.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Holding defendant to answer.
If, after hearing the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination, the magistrate finds that a public offense has been committed, and that there is probable or sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof, the magistrate shall enter an order holding the defendant to answer to said public offense, which order shall be substantially as follows: "It appearing to me that the offense set forth in the complaint (or any offense, according to the evidence presented at the preliminary examination, stating generally the nature thereof), has been committed, and that there is sufficient cause to believe the within named A.B. guilty thereof, I order that he be held to answer the same."
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1952–2017 · leading case: Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977).
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977). “§ 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. Dunn, 434 P.2d 88 (Idaho 1967). “State, supra, also held that when a preliminary examination determines a felony has been committed and that there is sufficient cause to believe the defendant guilty thereof (I.C. § 19-815), all requirements of law with respect to preliminary examinations were met and that the…”
State v. Haggard, 486 P.2d 260 (Idaho 1971). “Examination of witnesses for defendant. When the examination of witnesses on the part of the people is closed, the defendant may produce any material witnesses, which witnesses must be sworn, examined and cross-examined in the presence of the defendant.”
State v. Edmonson, 743 P.2d 459 (Idaho 1987). “On the other hand, I.C. § 19-815 provides: *471 19-815. Holding defendant to answer.”
State v. Gary L. Schall, 337 P.3d 647 (Idaho 2014). “I.C. § 19-815. Otherwise, the magistrate must dismiss the complaint and order the defendant released.”
State v. Greensweig, 641 P.2d 340 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “The appellant claims that the standards of probable cause required by I.C. § 19-815 and Idaho Criminal Rule 5.1(b) were not established at his preliminary examination.”
State v. Fairchild, 829 P.2d 550 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). “See I.C. § 19-815. Nor is Fair-child’s argument to the district court, that the informant’s identity was crucial to the pursuit of his motion for suppression of evidence seized from the search, supported by Roviaro.”
State v. Rutten, 245 P.2d 778 (Idaho 1952). “The formal order of commitment provided for by Section 19-815, I.C., does not appear in the transcript.”
Carey v. State, 429 P.2d 836 (Idaho 1967). “I.C. § 19-815. Under this section of the statute, the minimum standard of proof is less stringent than the conviction judgment criterion of beyond a reasonable doubt, Martinez v.”
State v. O'BRYAN, 531 P.2d 1193 (Idaho 1975). “The words ‘reasonable or probable cause’ mean such evidence as would lead a reasonable person to believe the accused party has probably or likely committed the offense charged.”
State v. O'mealey, 506 P.2d 99 (Idaho 1973). “§ 19-804, § 19-815. As provided and authorized in I.”
State v. Griffith, 612 P.2d 552 (Idaho 1980). “’ ” The magistrate’s order followed substantially the form required by I.C. § 19-815. 2 How can a magistrate be criticized for following the statute? There is no statutory or case law supporting the majority’s criticism of the magistrate’s decision.”
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.