Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence and statements based on a police officer's alleged promise of leniency, holding that there was no improper promise of leniency.The officer at issue initiated a Terry stop on a public stop after observing Defendant make a possible drug buy. The officer told Defendant if he cooperated he would not be arrested that day but may be arrested later. Three months after Defendant handed over crack cocaine and marijuana the officer charged him with possession. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that the evidence obtained after the officer promised leniency was fruit of the poisonous tree. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer did not improperly promise leniency. View "State v. Hillery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court determining that Jason Carter was civilly liable for the death of his mother, Shirley Carter, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Jason was civilly accused by his father and brother of intentionally shooting his mother. After a jury determined that Jason was civilly liable the State charged Jason with first degree murder. As a result of discovery from that criminal proceeding, Jason was acquitted murder. Jason later filed a second petition to vacate the judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Jason’s motion for continuance, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, first petition to vacate the judgment, and motion for recusal; (2) properly denied Jason's motion to quash a subpoena to the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigations; and (3) lacked jurisdiction to hear this second petition to vacate the judgment because it was untimely. View "Carter v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of driving while intoxicated (OWI), holding that defense counsel was not ineffective in declining to seek suppression of certain evidence on the basis that Defendant was subjected to an unconstitutional seizure.An officer observed Defendant illegally park her vehicle and stopped her to enforce the parking violation. Upon smelling marijuana and observing signs of Defendant's intoxication the officer inquired about her intoxication. The officer asked Defendant for her registration and insurance and discovered that her driver's license was revoked. Defendant was convicted of second-offense OWI and driving while license was revoked. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's OWI conviction; and (2) Defendant's counsel was not ineffective in failing to seek suppression of the evidence because the officer had probable cause to seize Defendant based upon his observation of her traffic violation. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted murder and related crimes, holding that any error that occurred in the proceedings below was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) whether Defendant's counsel breached an essential duty in failing to object to certain questions, any error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence a policy body-cam video taken immediately after the shooting, a recorded call, or a recording of a police interview with the victim taken five days after the shooting. View "State v. Swift" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that observations of a driver holding a phone in front of his face and actively manipulating the screen for at least ten seconds justified stopping the driver to resolve any ambiguity about whether the driver was violating Iowa Code 321.276.Section 321.276 allows drivers to use cell phones for some limited purposes while prohibiting most others. Defendant was stopped when officers believed he might be violating the statute. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a traffic violation. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers had reasonable suspicion Defendant was violating section 321.276 to support an investigatory stop. View "State v. Struve" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for wanton neglect of a resident of a health care facility, holding that the admission of a certain exhibit, when coupled with a certain instruction, posed a serious risk of misleading or confusing the jury.Defendant's conviction arose out of his alleged failure to properly ensure that a facility resident as ordered by the patient's physician. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court's admission of the standard of care in the nursing profession and the subsequent instructions related to the use of the standard of care in this case were improper. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed the conviction, holding that the professional standards should have been excluded under Iowa R. Evid. 5.403 and that the court's jury instructions did not mitigate the problem. View "State v. Buman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for attempting to obtain a prescription drug by deceit, as a habitual offender, and conspiracy to commit a nonforcible felony, holding that Defendant's constitutional challenge to Iowa Code 814.6A was unavailing.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting, over Defendant's objections, evidence regarding Defendant's residential address, which was offered to prove Defendant's knowledge, motive, and intent; and (2) section 814.6A, a newly-enacted law that prohibits a represented defendant from filing pro se documents, does not violate the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine. The Court then denied Defendant's motion to accept his pro se supplemental brief. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed following his pleas of guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon, interference with official acts while armed with a firearm, and carrying weapons, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the prosecutor breached the parties' plea agreement by failing to recommend the bargained-for sentence and that the district court improperly considered his juvenile offense history as an aggravating factor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish a breach of the plea agreement; and (2) the district court did not consider an improper sentencing factor in considering Defendant's juvenile adjudications and dispositions. View "State v. Boldon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted burglary with intent to commit theft, holding that the State's evidence, and all reasonable inferences from that evidence, was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction.The court of appeals reversed Defendant's attempted burglary conviction, concluding that the circumstantial evidence was too speculative to support his conviction because it required a stacking of inferences. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision after noting that this Court does not categorically prohibit stacking of inferences, holding that Defendant's conviction was supported by substantial evidence. View "State v. Ernst" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence for domestic abuse assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, holding that the district court exceeded its statutory sentencing authority in this case.The district court sentenced Defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed two years, suspended all but six days of the sentence, and placed Defendant on probation for two years. On appeal, the court of appeals noted that the imposed sentence appeared to be an illegal split sentence but declined to resolve the issue. The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to correct the illegality in this case, holding that the district court imposed a statutorily unauthorized sentence by suspending a portion of Defendant's indeterminate sentence. View "State v. Wieneke" on Justia Law