Opinion ID: 1224739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: motion to transport

Text: The Reeds based their motion to transport on I.C. § 19-4601, which provides: When it is necessary to have a person imprisoned in the state prison brought before any court, ... an order for that purpose may be made by the court (emphasis added). This section vests the court with discretion in determining whether to issue such an order. We thus review the lower court's ruling on the Reeds' motion to transport for an abuse of discretion. The test for determining whether a court has abused its discretion consists of three inquiries: (1) whether the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it, and (3) whether the court reached its decision through an exercise of reason. Burgess v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd., 127 Idaho 565, 573, 903 P.2d 730, 738 (1995) (citing Rhodehouse v. Stutts, 125 Idaho 208, 213, 868 P.2d 1224, 1229 (1994)). We hold that the court in this case did not abuse its discretion in denying the Reeds' motion to transport Foster for purposes of testifying at trial. First, the court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion. In addition to the language of § 19-4601, the other relevant code section clearly indicates that the decision to order transport is discretionary. Section 9-711, which falls within the portion of the Idaho Code addressing the means of producing evidence, provides: If the witness be a prisoner, confined in a jail or prison within this state, an order ... for his temporary removal and production before a court ... for the purpose of being orally examined, may be made by any justice of the Supreme Court or judge or magistrate of the district court. (emphasis added). Secondly, in denying the motion, the court acted within the outer boundaries of this discretion and consistently with applicable legal standards. Finally, the court reached its decision through an exercise of reason. Although the court did not elaborate on its ruling, it did indicate that it had considered the statutes that address the issue of transporting and deposing prisoners.