State v. Holtry

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Holtry

559 P.2d 756, 98 Idaho 140, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 332

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 1977

DocketNo. 12170

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 559 P.2d 756 (State v. Holtry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Holtry, 559 P.2d 756, 98 Idaho 140, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 332 (Idaho 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following a preliminary hearing, the defendant was bound over to stand trial on a charge of embezzlement. The district court dismissed the charges upon a motion by the defendant, pursuant to I.C. § 19-815A, alleging that the evidence produced at preliminary hearing was insufficient to sustain the magistrate court’s determination that he should be bound over. The state appealed from the dismissal by the district court. This is not an appealable order under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2804. State v. Blair, 97 Idaho 646, 551 P.2d 601 (1976); State v. Jennings, 95 Idaho 724, 518 P.2d 1186 (1974); State v. O’Mealey, 95 Idaho 202, 506 P.2d 99 (1973). Although this court has on occasion entertained such appeals under the plenary power granted by Art. 5, Sec. 9, of the Idaho Constitution, see e. g., State v. Lewis, 96 Idaho 743, 536 P.2d 738 (1975), and State v. Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1386 (1972), in this case we decline to do so. The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Following a preliminary hearing, the defendant was bound over to stand trial on a charge of embezzlement. The district court dismissed the charges upon a motion by the defendant, pursuant to I.C. § 19-815A, alleging that the evidence produced at preliminary hearing was insufficient to sustain the magistrate court’s determination that he should be bound over. The state appealed from the dismissal by the district court. This is not an appealable order under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2804. State v. Blair, 97 Idaho 646, 551 P.2d 601 (1976); State v. Jennings, 95 Idaho 724, 518 P.2d 1186 (1974); State v. O’Mealey, 95 Idaho 202, 506 P.2d 99 (1973). Although this court has on occasion entertained such appeals under the plenary power granted by Art. 5, Sec. 9, of the Idaho Constitution, see e. g., State v. Lewis, 96 Idaho 743, 536 P.2d 738 (1975), and State v. Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1386 (1972), in this case we decline to do so. The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

559 P.2d 756, 98 Idaho 140, 1977 Ida. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holtry-idaho-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack