Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 2-213 (2026)

Stay of proceedings or quashing indictment for irregularity in selecting jury — Evidence in support of motion — Remedies exclusive — Contents of records not to be disclosed. 

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

Stay of proceedings or quashing indictment for irregularity in selecting jury — Evidence in support of motion — Remedies exclusive — Contents of records not to be disclosed. 

(1) Within seven (7) days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event before the trial jury is sworn to try the case, a party may move to stay the proceedings, and in a criminal case to quash the indictment, or for other appropriate relief, on the ground of substantial failure to comply with this chapter in selecting the grand or trial jury.

(2)  Upon motion filed under subsection (1) of this section containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the moving party is entitled to present in support of the motion the testimony of the jury commissioner or the clerk, any relevant records and papers not public or otherwise available used by the jury commissioner or the clerk, and any other relevant evidence. If the court determines that in selecting either a grand jury or a trial jury there has been a substantial failure to comply with this chapter, the court shall stay the proceedings pending the selection of the jury in conformity with this chapter, quash an indictment, or grant other appropriate relief.
(3)  The procedures prescribed by this section are the exclusive means by which a person accused of a crime, the state, or a party in a civil case may challenge a jury on the ground that the jury was not selected in conformity with this chapter.
(4)  The contents of any records or papers used by the jury commissioner or the clerk in connection with the selection process and not made public under section 2-206(5), Idaho Code, shall not be disclosed, except in connection with the preparation or presentation of a motion under subsection (1) of this section. The parties in a case may inspect, reproduce, and copy the records or papers at all reasonable times during the preparation and pendency of a motion under subsection (1) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1974–2020 · leading case: State v. Paz, 798 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Paz, 798 P.2d 1 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 8× “The trial court ruled that the Motion to Quash was not timely filed, that appellant had not complied with the procedures to challenge jury selection set forth in I.C. § 2-213, and that appellant had no statutory basis to pursue the Motion to Quash.”
McCandless v. Pease, 465 P.3d 1104 (Idaho 2020). · cites it 8× “Idaho Code section 2-213 explains the process that must be followed if it is discovered that section 2-202 has not been followed: Within seven (7) days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event…”
State v. Pontier, 518 P.2d 969 (Idaho 1974). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 2-213. The mere fact that the jury panel selected to hear appellant's case was allegedly older than a cross section of the county is not material where the act was followed and there is nothing in the record to indicate a systematic exclusion of an identifiable class of…”
State v. Ruybal, 643 P.2d 835 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 6× “I.C. §§ 2-213(1) and (2) prescribe the exclusive procedure to challenge a jury panel on the ground that the venire was not selected in conformity with the Uniform Act.”
State v. Lopez, 692 P.2d 370 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Idaho Code § 2-213 (2), a part of the Uniform Act, provides that an irregularity in selecting the jury may be challenged only by a motion “containing a sworn statement of facts which, if true, would constitute a substantial failure to comply with this act____” This statutory…”
Higuera v. Hiestand, 918 P.2d 284 (Idaho 1996). · cites it 17× “WHETHER, IF I.C. § 2-213 IS INTERPRETED TO EXCLUDE SEPARATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES, IT EFFECTS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS The district court relied upon I.”
— Idaho Code § 2-213(1) — 2 cases
McCandless v. Pease, 465 P.3d 1104 (Idaho 2020). “Idaho Code section 2-213 explains the process that must be followed if it is discovered that section 2-202 has not been followed: Within seven (7) days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event…”
State v. Ruybal, 643 P.2d 835 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “I.C. §§ 2-213(1) and (2) prescribe the exclusive procedure to challenge a jury panel on the ground that the venire was not selected in conformity with the Uniform Act.”
— Idaho Code § 2-213(3) — 2 cases
McCandless v. Pease, 465 P.3d 1104 (Idaho 2020). “Idaho Code section 2-213 explains the process that must be followed if it is discovered that section 2-202 has not been followed: Within seven (7) days after the moving party discovered or by the exercise of diligence could have discovered the grounds therefor, and in any event…”
State v. Ruybal, 643 P.2d 835 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “I.C. §§ 2-213(1) and (2) prescribe the exclusive procedure to challenge a jury panel on the ground that the venire was not selected in conformity with the Uniform Act.”
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.