# State v. Zimmerman

> Idaho Supreme Court · April 2, 1992 · 121 Idaho 971

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626572

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. John Asa ZIMMERMAN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Idaho Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 2, 1992
- **Citations:** 121 Idaho 971; 829 P.2d 861; 1992 Ida. LEXIS 86
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McDEVITT
- **Judges:** Johnson, Bakes, McDevitt, Boyle
- **Cited by:** 109 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626572

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that five-year-old’s statement made at least five days after incident was not excited utterance
- holding that “a psychologist does not provide ‘medical’ treatment as contemplated by” I.R.E. 803(4)
- noting that child did not make statements to psychologist for purposes of medical treatment

## Opinion text

McDEVITT, Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
The Court succinctly and with elan sets forth the evidentiary issues raised. The Court wisely and correctly rules on those evidentiary issues. I concur in Parts II and III of the Court’s opinion.
I cannot, however, concur in the Court’s conclusion in Part I that there was a “reasonable possibility” that the evidence introduced in error could have contributed to the conviction in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626572. Public record. Not legal advice.