Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 20-507 (2026)

Retention of jurisdiction. 

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

Retention of jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction obtained by the court in the case of a juvenile offender shall be retained by it for the purposes of this act until he becomes twenty-one (21) years of age, unless terminated prior thereto. If a juvenile offender under the jurisdiction of the court and after attaining eighteen (18) years of age, is charged with a felony, he shall be treated as any other adult offender. If a person eighteen (18) years of age or older already under court jurisdiction is convicted of a felony, that conviction shall terminate the jurisdiction of the court, provided however, nothing herein contained shall prohibit any court from proceeding as provided in section 20-508(2), Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: State v. Doe, 208 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2009).
State v. Doe, 208 P.3d 730 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 28× “Idaho Code § 20-507 provides, in pertinent part, that “[jurisdiction obtained by the court in the case of a juvenile shall be retained by it for the purposes of this act until he becomes twenty-one (21) years of age, unless terminated prior thereto.”
State v. John Doe (2012-10), 322 P.3d 976 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 44× “Idaho’s juvenile courts have “exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile and over any adult who was a juvenile” at the time an alleged crime was committed.”
State v. Doe, 207 P.3d 974 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 8× “[7] I.C. § 20-507. An adult court may, however, obtain criminal jurisdiction over a juvenile when the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction under the JCA or enters an order waiving such jurisdiction.”
State v. Andrew Garcia, 355 P.3d 635 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 28× “” I.C. § 20-507. The statute plainly provides that jurisdiction ends only “for the purposes of this act.”
State v. Luis Adame Juarez, 356 P.3d 384 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 12× “We found that the district court erred when it concluded that the juvenile court had jurisdiction “conveyed by operation of I.”
State v. Cota-Medina, 416 P.3d 965 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 20-509. The other method through which a juvenile can be subject to adult court jurisdiction is if juvenile jurisdiction is waived under Idaho Code section 20-508.”
State v. Jane Doe (Juv.), 438 P.3d 769 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 20-507. Idaho Code [section] 20-528 provides that juvenile judgments are appealable under this Court's appellate rules, which require all appeals to be made within forty-two days from the date of the entry of judgment.”
State v. Giovanelli, 274 P.3d 18 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “For reasons not explained by the record, the petition was filed in Giovanelli’s juvenile ease and a hearing on the petition was held before a magistrate.”
State v. Andrew Garcia (Idaho 2015). · cites it 28× “” I.C. § 20-507. The statute plainly provides that jurisdiction ends only “for the purposes of this act.”
State v. Doe (Idaho 2020). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 20-507. While the final clause of section 20-507 provides for a juvenile court’s retention of jurisdiction in order to waive an offender into adult proceedings where its jurisdiction has otherwise expired, the juvenile court found this only pertained to the class of…”
State v. John Doe, 469 P.3d 36 (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Err in Affirming the Magistrate Court’s Order Waiving Juvenile Jurisdiction Because the Magistrate Court’s Findings Are Supported by Substantial and Competent Evidence Under the JCA, juvenile courts have exclusive, original jurisdiction over any juvenile who engages in an act or…”
State Sex Offender Registry v. Giovanelli (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “The magistrate denied the petition, ruling that, because Giovanelli was twenty-one years old and pursuant to I.C. § 20-507, it no longer had jurisdiction to hear the petition.”
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.