Charboneau v. State
Idaho Supreme Court
1DissentJustice Kidwell
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would uphold the district court’s dismissal of the petition.
A The District Court Did Not Err By Granting The State’s Motion For Summary Dismissal Because Charboneau’s Petition Was Based Upon Evidence That Was Not Admissible And Admissible Evidence Which Did Not Support Post-Conviction Relief.
In dismissing the petition, the district court determined Charboneau’s “new evidence” is neither new nor admissible evidence. “To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must make a factual showing based on admissible evidence. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McKinney v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
- Stuart v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. BarberIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
- Rowan v. RileyIdaho Supreme Court · 2003
- Nguyen v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.