If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal
May 15, 2020

Table of Contents

Idaho v. Barr

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

What’s at Stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue? What the Equal Protection Clause Means in the Context of Classifications Based on Religiosity

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, ALAN E. BROWNSTEIN

verdict post

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and UC Davis emeritus professor Alan E. Brownstein comment on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that raises the question whether a religiously neutral student-aid program in Montana that affords students the choice of attending religious schools violates the religion clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Amar and Brownstein express no opinion as to whether the courts’ often-expressed concerns about striking down invidiously motivated laws can be effectively overcome, but they contend that jurists who reject invalidating invidiously motivated laws must explain why reasons sufficient in other contexts are not persuasive in this case.

Read More

Idaho Supreme Court - Criminal Opinions

Idaho v. Barr

Docket: 46094

Opinion Date: May 14, 2020

Judge: Bevan

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Britain Lee Barr pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual exploitation of a child and to being a repeat sex offender. The district court sentenced Barr to five, fifteen-year fixed sentences, to run consecutively to each other, for an aggregate determinate term of seventy-five years, reasoning that section 19-2520G left it no discretion to sentence Barr to anything less severe. On appeal Barr argued the district court abused its discretion when it failed to perceive that it had discretion to: (1) designate indeterminate and determinate portions of the mandatory fifteen-year sentences; and (2) run the sentences concurrently with one another rather than consecutively. Barr also claimed that if the legislature intended section 19-2520G to deprive the court of its traditional power to decide whether to run sentences consecutively or concurrently, the statute is unconstitutional. The Idaho Supreme Court determined Barr’s arguments were not properly preserved for appeal. Therefore, the Court affirmed his conviction and sentence.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043