Idaho House Bill H0604

Idaho 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/26
• Refer: 2/9/26

Caption

SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION – Amends existing law to revise a provision regarding a psychosexual evaluation, to provide that failure to provide an evaluation may be an aggravating circumstance, to revise a provision regarding payment for a psychosexual evaluation by a defendant, and to establish provisions regarding use of certain funding and restitution.

Summary

House Bill 604 amends Idaho’s sexual offender registration laws to change how psychosexual evaluations are handled for people convicted of listed sex offenses. Under the bill, a person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of an offense covered by the sex offender registration chapter must undergo a psychosexual evaluation from a certified evaluator, selected from a roster maintained by the sexual offender management board, for the court’s consideration before sentencing or probation. The bill also states that the evaluator who performs the assessment generally cannot later provide treatment ordered as part of the sentence unless the court waives that restriction. The bill further provides that if a defendant does not make a good-faith effort to provide the completed evaluation to the court, that failure may be treated as an aggravating circumstance at sentencing. It also revises payment rules so the offender is responsible for the cost of the evaluation unless indigent, in which case the county pays initially and the offender may be ordered to repay the county. If a governmental entity funds the evaluation or related counseling on the defendant’s behalf, the defendant must make restitution to that entity under Idaho’s restitution procedures. The act is declared an emergency and would take effect July 1, 2026.

Impact

The bill would amend Sections 18-8316 and 18-8318 of the Idaho Code, tightening and clarifying the statutory framework for psychosexual evaluations in sex offense cases. It expands the court’s ability to treat noncompliance with evaluation requirements as a sentencing factor, reinforces the use of certified evaluators from the board roster, and adds explicit repayment and restitution provisions when public funds are used for an indigent defendant’s evaluation or related services. The affected parties are defendants convicted of listed sex offenses, counties that may front evaluation costs for indigent offenders, and governmental entities that fund court-ordered assessments or counseling.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a procedural and accountability update rather than a major policy shift. The committee referral to Judiciary, Rules and Administration suggests the bill is being handled as a technical criminal-justice matter within the sex offender registration framework. No vote record or committee transcript is available here, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials; however, the bill’s structure suggests likely support from those favoring stricter compliance and cost recovery, with potential concern from those focused on indigent defendants’ ability to pay.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely to be the sentencing consequence for failing to provide the evaluation and the financial burden placed on defendants, especially indigent offenders. Supporters may view the aggravating-circumstance language and repayment/restitution provisions as tools to improve compliance and shift costs away from taxpayers. Critics may argue that treating failure to provide an evaluation as aggravating could increase sentencing exposure, and that mandatory repayment obligations may be difficult for low-income defendants to satisfy, even when the county or another public entity initially covers the cost.