 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Eddins, Docket No. 30841, 2006 Opinion No. 1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for eluding police officer, defendant's brother was expected to testify that he, not defendant, was driving. Trial court properly denied motion for a new trial, pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-2406, when brother asserted privilege during trial but waived it later because newly available testimony was not newly discovered evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Helms, Docket No. 30460, 2006 Opinion No. 2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, an inmate, was convicted of violating Idaho Code § 18-915(c) for throwing toilet water at prison guards. Appellate court modified defendant's fixed life sentence, under Idaho Code § 19-2514, because offense did not warrant a life sentence despite defendant's status as a persistent offender.
|
|||||
| Troutner v. Kempthorne, Docket No. 30959, 2006 Opinion No. 1,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Citizens lacked standing to have member removed from Idaho Judicial Council as they did not allege they suffered distinct and palpable injury from member's appointment under Idaho Code § 1-2101(1) or that relief would prevent or redress claimed injury; judicial intervention would violate doctrine of separation of powers, Idaho Const. art. II, § 1.
|
|||||
| State v. Conant, Docket No. 30305, 2006 Opinion No. 3,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to suppress because Idaho Code § 23-943A required reasonable suspicion that defendant was underage before the officer could detain and arrest him for refusing to present identification and State conceded that nothing in the record suggested that the officer thought defendant was underage.
|
|||||
| State v. Leon, Docket No. 31261, 2006 Opinion No. 4,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Idaho Code § 19-5306 and Idaho Const. art. I, § 22, DVD presentation containing photographic and video images of the victim and her family at sentencing hearing was proper as it was a valid exercise of the victim's right to be heard; life sentence was proper given heinousness of crime and defendant's lack of rehabilitative potential.
|
|||||
| State v. Wilson, Docket No. 30360, 2006 Opinion No. 5,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence baggie of methamphetamine alleged to have been delivered to informant as defendant did not show evidence lacked foundation or was irrelevant. On remand, district court had to conduct in camera review pursuant to Idaho R. Evid. 509(c)(3) as informant possessed material evidence.
|
|||||
| Griffin v. State, Docket No. 30880, 2006 Opinion No. 6,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IDAHO, January 19, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not give adequate notice of the specific deficiencies in appellant's evidence or legal analysis in support of his petition for post-conviction relief, and thus did not properly state the grounds for dismissal under Idaho Code § 19-4908, but appellant was not entitled to summary disposition on his petition.
|
|||||
| Casi Found., Inc. v. Doe (In re Doe) , Docket No. 31176, 2006 Opinion No. 3,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father's parental rights were properly terminated on grounds of neglect, Idaho Code § 16-2005(b), where father actively encouraged child's mother to take drugs and findings about his parenting skills were supported by substantial competent evidence. Father failed to provide care and it was in child's best interests for his rights to be terminated.
|
|||||
| Muchow v. State, Docket No. 31948, 2006 Opinion No. 2,
SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO, January 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no violation of Idaho Code § 20-222 where defendant's probation did not exceed five years; the probationary period commenced on April 23, 1998, when defendant was initially placed on probation, and his probationary period ended April 23, 2003. Idaho Code § 18-309 talked only about calculating credit against the term of imprisonment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
