Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, two women in Boone, Iowa, reported separate incidents in which a man exposed himself to them in retail parking lots in the spring of 2022. Both women described the perpetrator and his vehicle, and law enforcement investigations led to Pat Kepner as a suspect. The identification process included photo arrays and video footage, with one woman identifying Kepner in a photo array and both later identifying him from video. Kepner was charged with two counts of indecent exposure, and at trial, the eyewitnesses’ identifications were central to the State’s case.At trial in the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Kepner sought to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Kim MacLin, a psychologist specializing in memory and eyewitness identification. Dr. MacLin’s proposed testimony focused on general scientific principles regarding the reliability of eyewitness identifications and the effects of investigative procedures on witness confidence and accuracy. The district court excluded this testimony, reasoning that it would improperly address witness credibility and could confuse the jury. The jury convicted Kepner on both counts, and the district court entered a suspended sentence. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding the expert testimony.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed the case and held that the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding Dr. MacLin’s generalized expert testimony. The court clarified that such testimony, which does not directly or indirectly vouch for a witness’s credibility but instead provides general scientific context, is admissible and can assist the jury in evaluating eyewitness identifications. The court further found that the exclusion of this testimony was prejudicial given the centrality of identification to the case. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial. View "State of Iowa v. Kepner" on Justia Law

Frederick Hawkins III was involved in a series of assaults against three women at a church in Ames, Iowa, where a nonprofit organization was serving meals. Over the course of a few minutes, Hawkins assaulted M.B. in a stairwell by grabbing her, rubbing his genitals against her, and putting his hand down her pants. He then slapped or grabbed C.C.’s buttocks as she passed him on the stairs, and shortly after, in an elevator, he touched E.M.’s buttocks while making sexually suggestive remarks and gestures. Hawkins was apprehended at the scene after police were called.The Iowa District Court for Story County, after a bench trial, found Hawkins guilty of three counts of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, rejecting his diminished responsibility defense and finding sufficient evidence of specific intent for each assault. Hawkins appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence of specific intent to commit sexual abuse regarding the assaults on C.C. and E.M. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that substantial evidence supported the findings of specific intent, and remanded for resentencing due to a sentencing error.The Supreme Court of Iowa reviewed only the sufficiency of the evidence regarding Hawkins’s specific intent to commit sexual abuse against C.C. and E.M. The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances—including the rapid succession and similarity of the assaults, Hawkins’s conduct, and the context of the events—there was substantial circumstantial evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer specific intent for all three assaults. The court affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence due to the conceded sentencing error and remanded for a new sentencing hearing. View "State of Iowa v. Hawkins" on Justia Law

In 2013, the plaintiff was charged in a single criminal case with two counts: domestic abuse assault and child endangerment. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the domestic abuse assault charge was amended to disorderly conduct, a simple misdemeanor, to which the plaintiff pleaded guilty. The child endangerment charge was dismissed as part of the agreement. Ten years later, the plaintiff sought expungement of the misdemeanor conviction under Iowa Code section 901C.3, which allows expungement of certain misdemeanor convictions if specific requirements are met.The Iowa District Court for Polk County granted expungement only for the disorderly conduct conviction, restricting access and redacting documents related to that count but leaving the remainder of the case file, including information about the dismissed charge, accessible to the public. The district court did not specify which documents should be restricted or redacted. When the plaintiff realized that the criminal case file was still publicly accessible, he filed a motion for implementation of expungement, arguing that the statute required expungement of the entire criminal case file, not just the conviction-related documents. The district court denied the motion, interpreting the statute to allow expungement only of documents related to the misdemeanor conviction.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case on a writ of certiorari. The court held that Iowa Code section 901C.3 requires expungement of the entire criminal case file when the prerequisites for expungement are met, not just the portions related to the misdemeanor conviction. The court reasoned that the statute’s language and legislative history support a whole-file approach, and that partial expungement could still allow the public to infer the existence of expunged charges, undermining the statute’s purpose. The Supreme Court sustained the writ, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "J. Doe v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

Two Washington County deputies went to a residence to investigate a report of illegal fireworks. The resident, Matthew Meisheid, emerged from his home, angrily confronted the deputies, and demanded they leave his property. During the encounter, Meisheid pulled a handgun from his waist, pointed it straight up, and declared, “I’ll show you a firework: Boom, boom, boom, boom!” The deputies, visibly shaken, retreated and Meisheid was later arrested. He was charged with two counts of assault for displaying a dangerous weapon in a threatening manner toward peace officers, with a felony enhancement for use of a weapon against peace officers.A jury in the Iowa District Court for Washington County found Meisheid guilty on both counts. The district judge sentenced him to prison with a five-year mandatory minimum. On appeal, Meisheid argued that there was insufficient evidence to show he displayed the weapon “toward” the deputies or in a threatening manner, and also challenged his sentence. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed both his conviction and sentence.The Supreme Court of Iowa granted further review, focusing solely on whether there was sufficient evidence that Meisheid displayed a dangerous weapon “toward” the deputies. The court held that, under the jury instructions given (to which Meisheid did not object), the jury could reasonably find that Meisheid’s act of showing the gun so the deputies would be aware of it constituted displaying the weapon “toward” them, even though he did not point it directly at them. The court affirmed the decisions of the Iowa Court of Appeals and the Iowa District Court for Washington County. View "State of Iowa v. Meisheid" on Justia Law

After a physical altercation in a gas station parking lot, the defendant was charged with willful injury causing serious injury. The incident began when the defendant, after an argument with his girlfriend, was being driven home by her mother and her mother’s fiancé. An argument in the car led to a confrontation in the parking lot, during which the defendant punched, kicked, and threatened the fiancé, resulting in significant injuries including lost teeth and facial fractures. The police responded, and one officer viewed the store’s surveillance video on a monitor, recording it with his body camera. Due to errors by law enforcement and the store, the original surveillance video was not preserved, leaving only the bodycam recording as evidence.The Iowa District Court for Polk County admitted the bodycam recording into evidence over the defendant’s objections regarding authentication and the best evidence rule. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to prison. On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the bodycam recording was improperly admitted because it was not properly authenticated by the officer or other witnesses, and remanded for a new trial.The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review. It held that while the officer’s testimony alone was insufficient to authenticate the recording, subsequent testimony from the victim properly authenticated the video up to the point of the second hit to the ground. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the video under the best evidence rule, as the content was not seriously disputed and the absence of the original was adequately explained. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "State of Iowa v. Manning" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, Kevin Woods was found in possession of drugs, a scale, a loaded semiautomatic pistol, and additional high-capacity firearm magazines. He was charged with possession of a controlled substance and carrying a dangerous weapon while in the illegal possession of a controlled substance or while committing an indictable offense. Woods pleaded guilty to both charges but challenged the latter conviction, arguing it violated his Second Amendment rights and article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution.The Iowa District Court for Polk County denied Woods's motion to dismiss the dangerous weapon charge, reasoning that the legislature could impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The court concluded that the prohibition on carrying firearms while illegally possessing a controlled substance or committing an indictable offense was a reasonable regulation supported by historical analogues. Woods entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the constitutionality of his conviction.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the Second Amendment does not cover the right to carry a firearm while illegally possessing a controlled substance or committing an indictable offense. The court reasoned that the federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms is limited to responsible, law-abiding citizens engaged in lawful conduct. Additionally, the court found that even if the conduct were covered by the Second Amendment, the regulation was consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court also concluded that Woods's conviction did not violate article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution, as the state has a compelling interest in public safety, and the statute was narrowly tailored to serve that interest. View "State of Iowa v. Woods" on Justia Law

Jordan Cole consented to a one-year protective order in a domestic abuse case, which prohibited him from possessing firearms under Iowa Code section 724.26(2)(a). Despite this, Cole pawned stolen firearms while the order was in effect. He was charged with theft and violations of section 724.26(2)(a). The theft charge was dropped, and Cole was convicted of two violations of section 724.26(2)(a). He was sentenced to concurrent prison sentences, which were suspended with probation.Cole appealed his convictions, arguing that section 724.26(2)(a) violated the Second Amendment and article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution. He also claimed an error in his sentencing order. The Iowa District Court for Story County had denied his motion to dismiss the charges based on these constitutional claims. Cole and the State agreed to dismiss two charges, and Cole waived his jury rights, leading to a trial on the minutes of testimony. The district court found Cole guilty and sentenced him to concurrent terms, suspended with probation, but stated that if probation was revoked, the sentences could be served consecutively.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Cole waived his Second Amendment and article I, section 1A rights by consenting to the protective order, which explicitly prohibited firearm possession. The court affirmed his convictions but agreed with Cole that the sentencing order's provision for consecutive sentences upon probation revocation was unlawful. The court remanded the case for entry of a corrected sentencing order, ensuring that any revocation of probation would not result in consecutive sentences. View "State of Iowa v. Cole" on Justia Law

Patrick Scullark, Jr. was charged with possession of a controlled substance after police officers found methamphetamine in his fanny pack during a search incident to his arrest on unrelated charges. Scullark attempted to pass the fanny pack to another person before being handcuffed. He argued that the search violated his constitutional rights because he could no longer access the fanny pack at the time it was searched.The Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County denied Scullark’s motion to suppress the evidence, finding the search valid as a search incident to arrest. Scullark entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling. The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, agreeing with Scullark that the search did not satisfy the search incident to arrest (SITA) exception because he could not access the fanny pack at the time it was searched.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the court of appeals decision, affirming the district court’s order. The court held that the search of the fanny pack was valid under both the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution. The court concluded that because the fanny pack was worn around Scullark’s waist at the time of his arrest, it was considered part of his person. Therefore, the search was justified as a search of his person incident to a lawful arrest, requiring no additional justification. The court emphasized that the SITA exception allows for a full search of the arrestee’s person and items immediately associated with the person. View "State v. Scullark" on Justia Law

In 2023, police in Des Moines, Iowa, received a tip about suspected narcotics trafficking at a residence. Acting under Iowa Code section 808.16, officers conducted warrantless searches of garbage bags placed curbside for collection. The searches revealed evidence of drug dealing, which was used to obtain a warrant to search the home, leading to further evidence and charges against two occupants, Charles Amble and John Mandracchia. The defendants moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that section 808.16 was unconstitutional.The Iowa District Court for Polk County ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring Iowa Code section 808.16 facially unconstitutional under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, as interpreted in State v. Wright. The court suppressed the evidence obtained from the garbage searches and the subsequent home search. The State appealed the decision.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its ruling. The court held that the specific provision in Iowa Code section 808.16(3), which deems garbage placed outside for collection in a publicly accessible area as abandoned property, is constitutional both facially and as applied in this case. This provision preempts conflicting local ordinances and negates any reasonable expectation of privacy in such garbage. Consequently, the warrantless trash pulls conducted by the police were lawful, and the evidence obtained was admissible.The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the district court's suppression ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State of Iowa v. Amble" on Justia Law

A criminal defendant was charged with operating while intoxicated after being pulled over for speeding. The arresting officer used radar to determine the defendant's speed. The assistant county attorney, Theron Christensen, prosecuted the case. After the defense exposed weaknesses in the State's case during depositions, Christensen filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence. The defendant resisted and moved for sanctions against Christensen, arguing the motion was frivolous and in bad faith. Christensen later withdrew the motion and dismissed the case, allegedly to avoid the officer testifying about radar calibration issues.The Iowa District Court for Story County dismissed the charges and later imposed a $2,072 monetary sanction on Christensen under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 and Iowa Code § 619.19, finding his actions sanctionable. Christensen filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the sanctions.The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that neither Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 nor Iowa Code § 619.19 applies to criminal cases. The court emphasized that these rules and statutes are intended for civil cases only and that the rules of civil procedure do not apply to criminal proceedings unless explicitly stated. The court held that the district court erred in imposing monetary sanctions on Christensen based on these civil rules and statutes. Consequently, the Iowa Supreme Court sustained the writ and reversed the sanctions order and the monetary sanction imposed on Christensen. View "Christensen v. Iowa District Court For Story County" on Justia Law