Legal Opinion

Haxforth v. State

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided January 25, 1990No. 17702PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  2. Commonwealth v. KoczwaraSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Hi Holdridge, A/K/A Hiram Holdridge, Larry Shumm and Neil Delmar Haworth v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
  4. State v. McMahanIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Commonwealth v. HeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. United States v. Gomez-LeonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
  2. State v. HazelwoodAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. McNairIdaho Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. State v. IveyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Jordan and Letendre v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2016

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API