James F. Ailshie

In State v. Hansen, the defendant was charged with unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor as a second offense after two state investigators purchased and consumed drinks at the Empire Bar in Blackfoot, identifying them as whiskey based on appearance, taste, and smell. A jury convicted the defendant, and the court imposed a sentence of six months in county jail plus a $500 fine, with additional jail time if the fine went unpaid. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that the evidence was sufficient under the presumption that a purchaser receives what was ordered and paid for, that the trial court's exclusion of certain cross-examination and its jury instructions were proper, and that the sentence combining imprisonment, fine, and default provisions was statutorily authorized.

criminal law

This case, Williams v. Koelsch, concerns whether a court may intervene to control or prohibit actions taken by the chief executive under constitutional authority. The court held that it cannot restrict the executive's discretion in advance but may review the legal effect of an executive act after it has been completed. The reasoning rests on separation of powers principles, which distinguish the roles of the three branches of government and limit judicial involvement to post-action inquiries, as illustrated by the distinction from United States v. United Mine Workers of America and the citation to Stein v. Morrison.

federal power

This case is an appeal from a conviction for assault with intent to commit rape, involving a dispute between neighboring couples in a shared apartment building that escalated to an alleged attack by the defendant on the female neighbor. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a possible new trial, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly lacking corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony and failing to establish the required intent. The court further reasoned that statements made by the defendant while in custody without a warrant, verified complaint, or notification of rights were improperly admitted as confessions or admissions, and the trial court erred by not giving a proper jury instruction on the admissibility of such statements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the will of Z.V. Swearingen, which had been admitted to probate, on the grounds of undue influence by the beneficiary who was also the testator's longtime attorney. The probate court dismissed the contest, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that no undue influence was exerted. The court reasoned that the contestant bears the burden of proving undue influence, which does not shift to the proponent, and that a confidential relationship like attorney-client alone does not establish undue influence, especially where the testator was strong-minded and independent. Additional claims regarding a purported later will were not properly raised in the pleadings and lacked supporting evidence.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim for death benefits under Idaho’s Workmen’s Compensation Law by the widow of a logger killed in a workplace accident. The employer had obtained a policy from the State Insurance Fund effective in October 1944 and later obtained a second policy from the Idaho Compensation Company in January 1945; after the accident the Board ruled both insurers liable as co-sureties. The Industrial Accident Board awarded benefits and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Fund had never properly cancelled its policy because it failed to notify the employer or the Board and did not return the unearned premium, leaving the policy in force under the policy terms and statutory requirements. The court further noted that the employer was permitted to carry additional insurance and that each insurer’s assumption of liability remained effective.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Beard v. Lucky Friday Silver-Lead Mines, a mine employee suffered the loss of one eye and permanent partial vision loss in the other after rock particles struck him while operating a mechanical drill, and he sought workers' compensation as a married man with three dependent minor children earning average weekly wages of $55.50. The Industrial Accident Board awarded weekly compensation of $19 for 99% of 146.6 weeks plus a payment to the Industrial Special Indemnity Fund. The employer appealed, contending the weekly rate was capped at $16 under the specific-injury statute. The court affirmed the award, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Law must be construed as a whole and that the legislature's most recent amendments to the total-disability provisions controlled to raise the applicable weekly compensation limits.

labor & employment