Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for assault "us[ing] any object to penetrate the genitalia or anus of another person" in violation of Iowa Code 708.2(5), holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that Defendant's remaining claims of error were unavailing.Defendant's conviction stemmed from his act of penetrating the victim's vagina with his finger while the victim was unconscious. On appeal, Defendant argued that his finger did not constitute an "object" under section 708.2(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant committed assault by penetration with an object; and (2) the district court did not err in restricting Defendant from impeaching the complaining witness with otherwise inadmissible evidence. View "State v. Zacarias" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of indecent contact with a child, holding the trial court did not err by allowing the jury to see a video recording of a child's forensic interview where the child discussed Defendant's sexual abuse of her.Long before the time the child reported the abuse and long before criminal charges were brought, the video interview at issue was recorded. During trial, the State filed a notice of intent to present the video interview. The video was shown the the jury after defense counsel cross-examined the child victim and suggested that she had fabricated her criminal trial testimony. After showing the jury the video the district court instructed the jury that the video could only be used as a tool to assess the child's credibility. Defendant appealed, arguing that the court's admission of the interview was in error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the video was admissible as a prior consistent statement. View "State v. Fontenot" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for child endangerment and remanded the case to the district court for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals properly vacated the restitution portion of the sentencing order due to the court's failure to make a proper reasonable-ability-to-pay determination regarding Defendant's restitution costs.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the restitution portion of Defendant's sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) certain challenged statements fell under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay; (2) Defendant's argument that her Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the admission of certain evidence was not preserved; and (3) the proper resolution of Defendant's appeal of the restitution order was to remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Defendant to follow the procedures required by Iowa Code 910.2A and then to hold a hearing under section 910.7 on the remaining restitution issues in this case. View "State v. Dessinger" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court prohibiting Defendant from filing any additional pro se supplemental documents in a postconviction relief proceeding, holding that the district court did not err.Under Iowa Code 822.3A, postconviction relief applicants are prohibited from filing "any pro se document, including an application, brief, reply brief, or motion, in any Iowa court." At issue was the constitutionality of the law, which was passed in the spring of 2019 and effective July 1, 2019, to pending postconviction relief proceedings and postconviction relief appeals. Defendant in this case argued that section 822.3A violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that there is no constitutional right to file pro se supplemental documents in postconviction relief proceedings and postconviction appeals. View "Hrbek v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Appellant's application to modify his sex offender registry requirements, holding that the district court erred in penalizing Defendant for his years of successful adjustment to sex offender registration.In 2000, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, making him subject to lifetime as a sex offender. Defendant was released in 2009 and, since then, had been on the registry without any violation of the registration requirements. In 2019, Defendant filed an application for modification of his sex offender registry requirements pursuant to Iowa Code 692A.128. The district court denied the application. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by not putting Defendant's STATIC-99R score into proper context and improperly relied on the absence of a stipulation with the Iowa Department of Correctional Services approving of a modification of the registration requirement. View "Becher v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing the trial information in this case, holding that the State's delay in arresting and formally charging Defendant did not amount to a due process violation.By late 2017, law enforcement had focused on Defendant as the suspected perpetrator of a robbery. However, the police did not file a criminal complaint against Defendant until August 2018 and did not serve an arrest warrant until September 2019. In October 2019, after it was finally filed, the district court dismissed the trial information, concluding that Defendant's due process rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State's delay in arresting and charging Defendant did not violate the speedy indictment rule or violate due process where Defendant failed to show actual prejudice. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the district court denying Defendant's application under Iowa Code 692A.128 to modify the requirement that he register as a sex offender, holding that because the district court did not have the benefit of the guidance provided in this opinion, the case must be remanded.Defendant was convicted of three counts of lascivious acts with a child. As a result of his convictions, Defendant was a tier III sex offender and subject to lifetime registration as a sex offender. Defendant filed an application for modification of his sex offender registration requirements, but the district court denied the application, concluding that Defendant did not present a compelling reason for release from the registry. The Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court improperly considered a number of factors in the modification proceeding. View "Fortune v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of sexual abuse in the third degree, holding that there was no trial error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited Defendant from cross-examining the victim about a prior sexual incident between Defendant and the victim; (2) the district court did not err when it submitted Instruction No. 20 to the jury; and (3) Defendant's claim that the evidence offered by the victim was too vague and insufficient to constitute substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict was without merit. View "State v. Donahue" on Justia Law

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