Haxforth v. State
Idaho Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
WESTON, Judge, Pro Tem.
Matthew Haxforth stands convicted of vehicular manslaughter. He now appeals a district court decision affirming a magistrate’s judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues, first, that I.C. § 18-4006(3)(c), the vehicular manslaughter statute, conflicts with I.C. § 18-114, the general criminal intent statute. Second, he contends that I.C. § 18-4006(3)(c) violates the due process clause of the United States Constitution. Third, he argues that his conviction violates I.C. § 18-201 because he was not “culpably negligent.” For the reasons explained…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Commonwealth v. KoczwaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Hi Holdridge, A/K/A Hiram Holdridge, Larry Shumm and Neil Delmar Haworth v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
- State v. McMahanIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
- Commonwealth v. HeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- United States v. Gomez-LeonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- State v. HazelwoodAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. McNairIdaho Court of Appeals · 2005
- State v. IveyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
- Jordan and Letendre v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.