Skip to main content

State v. Longoria

Citations

  • 992 P.2d 1219
  • 133 Idaho 819
  • 1999 Ida. App. LEXIS 97

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice as a result of the denial of his motion to sever because evidence regarding each separate count would be admissible to prove another count on the basis of a common scheme or plan
  • the Court declined to address Rule 8 issues, i.e., the propriety of the initial joinder, because the motion to sever only raised Rule 14 issues, i.e., prejudice
  • testimony at sue would have been admissible under I.R.E. 404(b) to show common plan to exploit and sexually abuse an identifiable group of young female victims — girls of similar age, spending the night with the defendant’s daughters, whom he abused late at night

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schwartzman, Lansing, Smith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.