State v. Harmon

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Schwartzmiller

    107 Idaho 89 (Idaho 1984)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that a not guilty verdict does not establish that an allegation was false

    Appellant next asserts that I.C. ยง 18-6607, under which he was convicted, is unconstitutional, in that the terms "lewd" and "lascivious" are too vague to give one notice of what conduct is thereby proscribed. In our recent decision in State v. Harmon, 106 Idaho 73, 685 P.2d 814 (1984), we stated: "Viewed against this standard, we conclude once again that the phrase `lewd or lascivious act or acts upon or with the body or any part or any member thereof of a minor child under the age of sixteen years, with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust or passions or sexual desires . . .' is not facially vague and is sufficiently definite to give fair warning to the people of Idaho as to what acts are prescribed, without including an exhaustive list of detailed deviant bodily contexts and/or exhibitions which one might imagine."

  2. State v. Flegel

    Docket No. 35117 (Idaho Oct. 18, 2011)

    It is true that the original lewd-conduct statute withstood facial void-for-vagueness challenges before the Legislature added a list of specific prohibited acts to the statute in 1984. State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 78, 685 P.2d 814, 819 (1984) (upholding a conviction for attempted rape); State v. Shannon, 95 Idaho 299, 302, 507 P.2d 808, 811 (1973) (rape); State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 57, 245 P.2d 788, 791-92 (1952); see also Schwartzmiller v. Gardner, 752 F.2d 1341, 1348-49 (9th Cir. 1984) (upholding a conviction where the defendant masturbated a child). Cases interpreting the former statute upheld convictions for certain egregious activities such as child rape or fondling a child's genitals.

  3. State v. Flegel

    151 Idaho 525 (Idaho 2011)   Cited 28 times
    In Flegel, we held that an amended indictment was invalid because the State could not amend an indictment after the jury had acquitted the defendant of the crime charged in the indictment in order to include a non-included offense without first submitting it to the grand jury and filing a new information.

    It is true that the original lewd-conduct statute withstood facial void-for-vagueness challenges before the Legislature added a list of specific prohibited acts to the statute in 1984. State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 78, 685 P.2d 814, 819 (1984) (upholding a conviction for attempted rape); State v. Shannon, 95 Idaho 299, 302, 507 P.2d 808, 811 (1973) (rape); State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 57, 245 P.2d 788, 791โ€“92 (1952); see also Schwartzmiller v. Gardner, 752 F.2d 1341, 1348โ€“49 (9th Cir.1984) (upholding a conviction where the defendant masturbated a child). Cases interpreting the former statute upheld convictions for certain egregious activities such as child rape or fondling a child's genitals.

  4. Castorena v. General Elec

    149 Idaho 609 (Idaho 2010)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that the fact the statute of limitations had run against decedent's personal injury claim did not bar a wrongful death suit

    Russell v. Cox, 65 Idaho 534, 539, 148 P.2d 221, 223 (1944). This Court is not bound by federal courts' interpretations of Idaho law, see State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 76, 685 P.2d 814, 817 (1984), such interpretations have no precedential authority with this Court. Furthermore, we disagree with the Adams court's analysis.

  5. State v. Oar

    129 Idaho 337 (Idaho 1996)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Oar, 129 Idaho 337, 341, 924 P.2d 599, 603 (1996), the Supreme Court rejected an argument that a similar definition of "sexual contact" in a different statute, I.C. ยง 18-1508A, was unconstitutionally vague.

    It pointed out that "the forbidden acts and conduct are further limited and defined by the specific intent required by the statute. . . . So the certainty required by due process is present." Id. at 57, 245 P.2d at 792; accord State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 76-77, 685 P.2d 814, 817-18 (1984). Finally, this Court has held that the terms "lewd," "lascivious," and "infamous crime against nature," without further definition, are not unconstitutionally vague.

  6. Turpen v. Oklahoma Corp. Com'n

    1988 OK 126 (Okla. 1989)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that a finding which does no more than reference previous Commission treatment of a subject and a staff proposal leaves too much to conjecture and speculation

    As was stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Mandel v. Bradley, "a summary affirmance is an affirmance of the judgment only." Blackmon v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 642 S.W.2d 499, 500 [1982]; State v. McKay, 680 S.W.2d 447, 450 [Ten. 1984]; Holland v. Independent Fire Ins. Co., 168 Ga. App. 761, 310 S.E.2d 297, 298 [1983]; State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 685 P.2d 814, 817 [1984]; Nandorf, Inc. v. CNA Ins. Companies, 134 Ill. App.3d 134, 88 Ill.Dec. 968, 479 N.E.2d 988, 993 [1985]. This court acknowledged in Dority v. Green Country Castings Corp., Okla., 727 P.2d 1355, 1359 n. 24 [1986], that an inferior federal court's pronouncement on a federal-law question is "highly persuasive" even though not binding on a state court of last resort.

  7. State v. Coleman

    128 Idaho 466 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that statute prohibiting lewd or lascivious act upon minor was not void for vagueness

    State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 57, 245 P.2d 788, 791-92 (1952). After Evans, the Court concluded that the statute was sufficiently certain to convey to a person of ordinary understanding an adequate description of the evil intended to be proscribed, State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 78, 685 P.2d 814, 819 (1984); State v. Shannon, 95 Idaho 299, 302, 507 P.2d 808, 811 (1973), and was not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Schwartzmiller, 107 Idaho 89, 94, 685 P.2d 830, 835 (1984).

  8. Fowler v. State

    109 Idaho 1002 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 13 times

    The fact that Fowler did not admit to committing the act does not foreclose him from voluntarily pleading guilty since he acknowledged that the evidence made a strong case against him. State v. Harmon, 107 Idaho 73, 685 P.2d 814 (1984). From our review of the record before the district judge at the sentencing hearing, we conclude that Fowler's assertion in the presentence report of his lack of criminal intent was not sufficient to raise an obvious doubt as to his guilt. The court did not err in accepting Fowler's guilty plea.