Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Charles Oliver was convicted a second time of third-degree sexual abuse, and Oliver stipulated that he had a prior conviction for third-degree sexual abuse. Because of his prior conviction, Oliver was guilty of a class A felony under the enhanced sentencing provisions of Iowa Code 902.14(1), and the district court accordingly sentenced Oliver to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Oliver's sentence, holding (1) the sentence of life without parole did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the state and federal Constitutions when considered in light of the particular facts of Oliver's case; and (2) section 902.14(1) was not unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to Oliver. View "State v. Oliver" on Justia Law

On July 27, 2011, the Governor item vetoed several provisions in an appropriations bill passed in the General Assembly. Primarily at issue was $8.66 million the legislature appropriated in section 15 for the operation of Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) field offices. The Governor, without vetoing that appropriation, item vetoed (1) section 15(3)(c), prohibiting the closure of field offices; (2) section 15(5), defining "field office" to require the presence of a staff person; and (3) section 20, restricting use of IWD appropriations for the national certificate program. The district court upheld the item veto of section 20 but declared invalid the item veto of section 15(3)(c) and 15(5). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the Governor's item vetoes of section 15(5) and section 20 did not comply with the item-veto amendment of the state constitution because the Governor unconstitutionally item vetoed "conditions or restrictions" on the appropriations without vetoing the accompanying appropriations; and (2) when the Governor impermissibly item vetoes a condition on an appropriation during the pocket veto period, the appropriation item fails to become law. Remanded for entry of judgment invalidating sections 15 and 20 of the bill. View "Homan v. Branstad" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana as an accommodation offense. Defendant was previously convicted of simple possession of marijuana. Defendant requested a sentencing hearing to determine whether he should be sentenced for a serious misdemeanor or an aggravated misdemeanor. The district court concluded the plain language of Iowa Code 124.410 and 124.401(5) provided Defendant be sentenced for a serious misdemeanor. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, holding that the court did not misinterpret or misapply sections 124.401(5) and 124.410 when it sentenced Defendant for a serious misdemeanor under the circumstances presented here. View "State v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Police officers initiated an investigatory encounter with William DeWitt in Walmart based initially on information provided to them by a confidential informant. The officers decided to confront DeWitt and take him outside to his car to talk to him about their suspicion he was selling drugs. One or both of the officers took DeWitt by the arm. DeWitt broke free from their grasp, and the officers responded by taking him to the ground and handcuffing him. DeWitt was subsequently convicted of possession with intent to deliver, violation of the drug stamp act, and interference with official acts. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying DeWitt's motion to suppress, as the officers' conduct in physically restraining DeWitt was not a violation of his right to be protected from unreasonable seizures under the state and federal constitutions; and (2) under the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence was sufficient to support DeWitt's conviction. View "State v. DeWitt" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether an internal audit created by Broadlawns Medical Center as a result of the theft of drugs by an employee was a public record under the Iowa Open Records Act. The district court concluded that, because the internal audit was provided to the Iowa Board of Pharmacy in order to assist in its investigation of licensing matters arising from the theft, the internal audit amounted to investigative materials in the hands of a licensing board under Iowa Code 272C.6(4) and was not subject to disclosure. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the judgment of the district court holding that the internal audit was not subject to disclosure, as the internal pharmacy audit was a public record, not a confidential record, and other statutory exceptions asserted to prevent public disclosure were inapplicable; and (2) affirmed the rulings of the district court that the plaintiff failed to establish the basis for nondisclosure under Iowa Code 22.7(61). View "Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

This case was remanded to the district court for determination of whether a class should be certified and for determination of what, if any, part of the City's franchise fees for gas and electricity services are related to its administrative expenses in exercising its police power. The district court certified a class, found the franchise fees cannot exceed $1,575,194 per year for the electric utility and $1,574,046 for the gas utility, entered judgment in favor of the certified class against the City in the amount by which such fees exceeded that amount for an approximately ten-year period, and retained jurisdiction to determine the amount of money to be refunded to members of the class. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as modified, concluding that certain amounts allocated or not allocated by the district court as proper components of the franchise fees should be modified. Remanded. View "Kragnes v. City of Des Moines" on Justia Law

Rachel Overbay, the driver of a vehicle, was involved in an accident and transferred to the hospital. A law enforcement officer requested a blood sample from Overbay. Overbay, however, was incorrectly informed that her refusal of the requested chemical test would automatically lead to revocation of her driving privileges. In fact, Overbay's refusal of the blood test would not have been deemed final but would have led to her being offered a different chemical test. Overbay agreed to provide the blood sample, and the results showed a blood alcohol content of more than twice the legal limit. The State subsequently charged Overbay with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The district court granted Overbay's motion to suppress, finding that Overbay's consent to the blood test was not voluntary because it was based on misleading information. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the district court, holding that consistent with precedent, inaccurate information does not render a driver's consent involuntary when the record indicates that the inaccuracy did not affect the driver's decision. Remanded. View "State v. Overbay" on Justia Law

Members of the Old Order Groffdale Conference Mennonite Church are forbideen from driving tractors unless their wheels are equipped with steel cleats. A Mitchell County road protection ordinance forbade driving such vehicles on the highways. Matthew Zimmerman was cited for operating his tractor in violation of the ordinance. Zimmerman moved to dismiss the citation on the ground that his federal and state constitutional rights to free exercise of religion had been violated. The district court overruled Zimmerman's motion to dismiss, concluding that the ordinance (1) was both neutral and generally applicable, and (2) survived strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance as applied to church members violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment where the ordinance (1) was not of general applicability because it contained exemptions that were inconsistent with its stated purpose of protecting Mitchell County's roads, and (2) did not survive strict scrutiny because it was not the least restrictive means of serving what was claimed to be a compelling governmental interest in road protection. Remanded for an order of dismissal. View "Mitchell County v. Zimmerman" on Justia Law

Defendant Jerin Mootz was convicted for assault on a police officer resulting in bodily injury. During voir dire, Mootz sought to use a peremptory challenge to remove a Hispanic juror. The district court found Mootz was using his strikes in a racially discriminatory manner, denied the strike, and seated the juror. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that the district court erred in refusing to allow the strike of the potential juror, but that Mootz had not shown that the error prejudiced him. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the trial court erred when it prohibited Mootz from using his peremptory challenge to remove the juror; (2) Mootz, or any other similarly situated defendant, was not required to show actual prejudice in order to reverse his conviction; and (3) automatic reversal is required whenever a defendant is denied the use of a peremptory challenge based on an erroneous interpretation of Batson v. Kentucky and its progeny and the objectionable juror is improperly seated. View "State v. Mootz" on Justia Law

Robert Lowe was charged with several criminal counts related to Lowe's alleged manufacture of methamphetamine. Lowe moved to certain suppress statements he made to the police. The district court granted the motion, determining that because the statements had been made in response to a promise of leniency they were rendered involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the consent that led to the search of the premises was proper and the motion to suppress the physical evidence obtained as a result of the search was properly denied; and (2) when police reinitiated questioning of Lowe after he requested an attorney, they violated his constitutional rights under Miranda, and because there was not sufficient exigency to justify such questioning, the public safety exception to Miranda did not apply under the facts of this case. Therefore, Lowe's statements were properly suppressed. View "State v. Lowe" on Justia Law