Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender registry requirements. Defendant committed the offense while on parole for the underlying sex crime. The district court imposed a two-year prison sentence consecutive to Defendant’s parole revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for the consecutive sentence. A divided court of appeals affirmed the sentence, concluding that the presumption for consecutive sentences in Iowa Code 908.10A, the parole-revocation sentencing statute, excused the district court from the general requirement to state why it imposed a consecutive sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under section 908.10A, the district court must give reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence; and (2) the district court in this case did not adequately explain the reasons for the consecutive sentence. Remanded. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with dependent adult abuse for allegedly punching a disabled client while Defendant was employed at a home caring for dependent adults. Defendant was charged with dependent adult abuse. The State filed a motion in limine as to the admissibility of evidence of Defendant’s prior violent acts or findings of dependent adult abuse. The State also filed a motion to unseal a previous founded dependent adult abuse report that was over ten years old. The district court granted the State’s motion to unseal the records and conditionally granted the State’s motion in limine to allow the State to use the existence of the report at trial to impeach Defendant or his character witnesses. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s ruling that unsealed the record of a founded report of dependent adult abuse by Defendant, holding that the legislature did not intend that the district court open sealed records regarding founded dependent adult abuse; and (2) declined to issue an advisory opinion on the scope of permissible impeachment at trial. View "State v. Olutunde" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal transmission of HIV. Appellant later filed an application for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by allowing Appellant to plead guilty to a charge for which there was no factual basis. The lower courts denied relief, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the State dismissed the charges against Appellant. Appellant then filed an action under Iowa Code 663A claiming that he was wrongfully imprisoned by the State and was entitled to compensation. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant was not entitled to relief because he had pled guilty in a criminal case that provided the basis for the imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 663A.1(1)(b) categorically excludes all persons who plead guilty from Iowa’s wrongful imprisonment statute, and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to pursue a claim for wrongful imprisonment under section 663A. View "Rhoades v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal transmission of HIV. Appellant later filed an application for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by allowing Appellant to plead guilty to a charge for which there was no factual basis. The lower courts denied relief, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case. On remand, the State dismissed the charges against Appellant. Appellant then filed an action under Iowa Code 663A claiming that he was wrongfully imprisoned by the State and was entitled to compensation. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Appellant was not entitled to relief because he had pled guilty in a criminal case that provided the basis for the imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 663A.1(1)(b) categorically excludes all persons who plead guilty from Iowa’s wrongful imprisonment statute, and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to pursue a claim for wrongful imprisonment under section 663A. View "Rhoades v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pled not guilty to the charge of delivering methamphetamine. During jury selection, the prosecutor posed hypothetical questions approximating the facts of the case, intimated the State possessed additional evidence supporting guilt but could only present some of it, and implied that the State only prosecutes guilty people. The jury later returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty. Defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the State’s comments and questions were not so inflammatory as to deny Defendant a fair trial. The court of appeals concluded that the prosecutor’s questions ventured into a gray area but concluded that the remarks did not cause juror bias or make the trial unfair. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) of the four lines of voir dire inquiry challenged by objection and preserved for appellate review, two were permissible; and (2) the district court mitigated any prejudice resulting from the two lines of questionable voir dire inquiry, the court’s remediate efforts were adequate under the circumstances presented here. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated due to certain statements a prospective juror made during voir dire. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court did not deny Defendant a fair trial by an impartial jury because the statements the prospective juror made during voir dire were not so prejudicial as to warrant a presumption they tainted at least one member of the jury panel; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to holding a hearing to permit defense counsel to show cause for missing an extended discovery and deposition deadline; (3) the record was inadequate to assess whether prejudice resulted from defense counsel’s breach of an essential duty, and Defendant may bring his ineffective assistance claim in a future postconviction relief action; and (4) the district court applied the incorrect standard in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial on the ground the verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Ary" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that defendant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated due to certain statements a prospective juror made during voir dire. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the district court did not deny Defendant a fair trial by an impartial jury because the statements the prospective juror made during voir dire were not so prejudicial as to warrant a presumption they tainted at least one member of the jury panel; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to holding a hearing to permit defense counsel to show cause for missing an extended discovery and deposition deadline; (3) the record was inadequate to assess whether prejudice resulted from defense counsel’s breach of an essential duty, and Defendant may bring his ineffective assistance claim in a future postconviction relief action; and (4) the district court applied the incorrect standard in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial on the ground the verdicts were contrary to the weight of the evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Ary" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance first offense. The judgment and sentence provided that Defendant’s driver’s license shall be revoked for 180 days and provided for several surcharges on top of the fine. Defendant appealed, arguing that his written plea was defective because it failed to disclose the statutory minimum sentence of two days in jail, the mandatory six months’ revocation of his driver’s license, and the surcharges that were added to his fine. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s plea and sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and vacated the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court, holding (1) Defendant’s plea was involuntary because revocation of the driver’s license of a person convicted of a drug possession offense is mandatory, immediate, and part of the punishment for that offense, and therefore, the court must inform the defendant of this consequence before accepting his guilty plea; and (2) Defendant had a right to be informed of fine surcharges. Remanded. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

The juvenile court adjudicated J.C. a delinquent child after finding beyond a reasonable doubt that J.C. committed assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the juvenile court violated J.C.’s constitutional right to confrontation by admitting the out-of-court statements made by a four-year-old victim to a physician during a medical assessment and to a forensic interviewer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) admission of the physician’s testimony and report did not violate J.C.’s confrontation rights under either the Sixth Amendment or the Iowa Constitution; and (2) any error in admission of the forensic interviewer’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law

The juvenile court adjudicated J.C. a delinquent child after finding beyond a reasonable doubt that J.C. committed assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the juvenile court violated J.C.’s constitutional right to confrontation by admitting the out-of-court statements made by a four-year-old victim to a physician during a medical assessment and to a forensic interviewer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) admission of the physician’s testimony and report did not violate J.C.’s confrontation rights under either the Sixth Amendment or the Iowa Constitution; and (2) any error in admission of the forensic interviewer’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "In re J.C." on Justia Law