THE IMPACT OF COUNTERMAN V. COLORADO ON STALKING PROSECUTIONS IN IDAHO

This Note reflects on the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Counterman v. Colorado, which held that in order to find liability for true threat crimes the state or plaintiff must prove the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten the recipient. The holding creates a new, additional burden on the movant to prove intent, where before, the majority of state and circuit courts only required an objective, reasonable person standard to prove intent in true threat cases. Idaho, being one of the states that previously used a reasonable person standard in prosecuting true threats, is affected by this holding in that the state in stalking prosecutions must now prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s subjective intent in threatening the recipient. Accordingly, this Note evaluates the impact of the Counterman holding on Idaho stalking statutes and the effects this will have for future prosecutions in the state.