Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-815A (2026)
Challenging sufficiency of evidence of preliminary examination.
✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Challenging sufficiency of evidence of preliminary examination.
A defendant once held to answer to a criminal charge under this chapter may challenge the sufficiency of evidence educed at the preliminary examination by a motion to dismiss the commitment, signed by the magistrate, or the information filed by the prosecuting attorney. Such motion to dismiss shall be heard by a district judge.
If the district judge finds that the magistrate has held the defendant to answer without reasonable or probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed the crime for which he was held to answer, or finds that no public offense has been committed, he shall dismiss the complaint, commitment or information and order the defendant discharged.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Moore, 516 P.3d 1054 (Idaho 2022).
State v. Moore, 516 P.3d 1054 (Idaho 2022). “” I.C. § 19-815A. The language of section 19-815A strongly suggests that sufficiency 20 and admissibility, although different concepts, cannot be completely separated from each other in review of the preliminary hearing: A defendant once held to answer to a criminal charge under…”
State v. Stuart, 745 P.2d 1115 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “An attorney from the public defender's office, who represented all three defendants, stated that he would be pursuing, under I.C. § 19-815A, motions to dismiss *1116 on behalf of Stuart and a co-defendant.”
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977). “) The question therefore arises: When, and under what circumstances, may a disappointed prosecutor challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the magistrate's commitment order? The majority fears a lack of symmetry in the appeals process because such a right belongs to…”
State v. Pole, 79 P.3d 729 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). “Idaho Code Section 19-815A provides that once a defendant has been held to answer to a criminal charge, the defendant may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing by filing with the district court a motion to dismiss.”
State v. Gary L. Schall, 337 P.3d 647 (Idaho 2014). “I.C. § 19-815A. If the district court disagrees with the magistrate regarding the existence of probable cause, the district court must dismiss the complaint and order the defendant released.”
State v. Jennings, 518 P.2d 1186 (Idaho 1974). “On July 27, 1972, pursuant to I.C. § 19-815A, 1 defendant filed a motion in district court to dismiss the information on the ground that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the preliminary hearing to establish probable cause.”
State v. Ruth, 574 P.2d 1357 (Idaho 1978). “A successful motion under I.C. § 19-815A would have erased defendant's fear of going to the gallows, which overwhelmed him to the extent that he obviously was not the one to be making any decisions.”
State v. Tate, 834 P.2d 883 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). “Motion Re: Preliminary Hearing Tate filed a “motion to suppress and motion to dismiss in re: preliminary hearing” (I.C. § 19-815A motion). In relevant part, the motion sought to persuade the district court to dismiss the case based on a lack of proof at the preliminary hearing…”
State v. Phelps, 953 P.2d 999 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). “Phelps asserts that the magistrate’s commitment was not based on probable cause as required by I.C. § 19-815A, 2 which Phelps claims was the basis for her motion.”
State v. O'mealey, 506 P.2d 99 (Idaho 1973). ““Pursuant to Idaho Code 19-815A, it is the Court’s conclusion that the Magistrate held the defendant, O’Mealey to answer without reasonable or probable cause to believe the defendant had committed the crime of ‘possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver,’ and,…”
State v. Porter, 128 P.3d 908 (Idaho 2005). ““The finding of probable cause shall be based upon substantial evidence upon every material element of the offense charged....” Id. “A defendant once held to answer to a criminal charge .”
State v. Roth, 458 P.3d 150 (Idaho 2020). “According to the State, the district court abused its discretion by requiring that the State prove Roth was served a copy of the furlough order when notice of the consequences of a failure to return to custody was not an element of the crime of escape.”
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.