The Idaho Supreme Court held that a Post Falls man's daughter was not a "household member" and so felony domestic battery and attempted strangulation charges against him were correctly dismissed.

The state's high court backed 1st District Court Judge Lansing L. Haynes' ruling in Kootenai County dismissing the charges against John A. Schulz, 37.

Schulz was charged in July 2009 for allegedly injuring his daughter, who was 15 years old at the time. Court papers said he allegedly spanked her with a belt 10 to 15 times on April 12, 2009, in addition to an alleged attempt to strangle her on June 28, 2009.

The Supreme Court, citing state statute, said felony domestic battery and attempted strangulation both require the victim to be the defendant's "household member," defined as a spouse, former spouse, or a person who has a child in common. The definition of household member also includes "a person with whom a person is cohabiting, whether or not they have married or have held themselves out to be husband or wife."

At issue in Schulz's case was the meaning of the word "cohabiting."

The Supreme Court disagreed with prosecutors, who argued that "cohabiting" extended to all persons living in the household.

The court found it doesn't "extend to a child victim of her father's violence," Justice Jim Jones wrote in the opinion filed Wednesday.

The court pointed out that the word "cohabiting" is often found used along with "spouse, former spouse, or a person who has a child in common regardless of whether they have been married."

The opinion said, "Dictionary definitions also demonstrate that 'cohabiting' plainly denotes an intimate relationship."

The court said although Webster's Dictionary secondarily defines the term cohabit "to live together or in company," its primary definition is "to live together as or as if husband and wife."

Kootenai County Prosecutor Barry McHugh told The Press, "The Supreme Court's decision provides necessary clarification of the definition of the term 'household member' and the scope of the statutes in question, and we will proceed in accord with its ruling."