ID · jury_instructions
IDJI 2.12.9
Charging instruction – defense of emergency exception
On defendant's affirmative defense that an emergency situation existed, excusing defendant from obtaining a consent before treatment, the defendant has the burden of proof on each of the following propositions:
1. The patient was incapacitated, or was a minor, and was therefore incapable of providing a valid consent; and
2. There was no one else available who could have provided a valid consent; and
3. The circumstances presented a medical emergency or a substantial likelihood that the patient's life or health would be seriously endangered by a delay in treatment.
Comment:
See Idaho Code § 39-4301 et seq.; Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 805P.2d 452 (1991); Rook v. Trout, 113 Idaho 652, 747 P.2d 61 (1987).
Provenance
- Source
- isc.idaho.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-21
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
afa3df19621987a146bb86c20f1155534605c696e7e6d9af12cf2053a51e6b63
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.