Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the second-degree murder of his live-in girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not reversibly err by (1) failing to submit an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, as the evidence of provocation was insufficient to support admission; (2) excluding hearsay evidence relevant to Defendant's diminished-capacity defense based on his posttraumatic stress disorder, as Defendant failed to lay a foundation supporting any exception to the hearsay rule; (3) declining to obtain and review the victim's mental health records for exculpatory information; and (4) denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "State v. Thompson" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant, a juvenile, was convicted of first-degree murder and mandatorily sentenced to life without parole. Defendant subsequently pursued numerous postconviction relief actions, including an application to correct his sentence. After the Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to consider the constitutionality of Defendant's sentence, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that the constitution prohibited a sentencing scheme mandating life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. Before Defendant's hearing, the Governor commuted Defendant's sentence to life with no possibility for parole for sixty years. At the hearing before the district court, Defendant argued he should still be resentenced under Miller. The district court (1) concluded that the Governor exceeded his authority by commuting Defendant's sentence because the commutation circumvented the individualized sentencing required under Miller, and (2) resentenced Defendant to life in prison with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's commuted sentence still amounted to cruel and unusual punishment; and (2) consequently, the district court properly resentenced Defendant in light of Miller.View "State v. Ragland" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, seventeen-year-old Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of first-degree burglary. The district court imposed a fifty-year sentence, of which Defendant was required to serve thirty-five years, at which point she would become eligible for parole. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence, holding (1) Defendant's sentence of a minimum of thirty-five years without the possibility of parole for the crimes involved in this case violated the core teachings of Miller v. Alabama; and (2) an individualized sentencing hearing was required in this case. Remanded. View "State v. Pearson" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and first-degree robbery. Defendant was sixteen years old at the time he committed the offenses. The district court imposed a seventy-five-year aggregate sentence, of which Defendant was required to serve 52.5 years. Defendant's alleged actions took place before the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. Alabama. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated his sentence, holding (1) Defendant's 52.5-year minimum prison term triggered the protections to be afforded under Miller - namely, an individualized sentencing hearing to determine the issue of parole eligibility; and (2) a district court must recognize and apply the core teachings of Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, and Miller in making sentencing decisions for long prison terms involving juveniles. Remanded.View "State v. Null" on Justia Law

In 2002, David Buchwald pleaded guilty to a single count of lascivious acts with a child. Upon his release from prison in 2004, Buchwald was required to register as a sex offender for ten years. In 2011, Buchwald petitioned for modification of this requirement. After determining that Buchwald met the requirements of the statutory registration modification provision, the district court granted modification and reduced the duration of Buchwald’s registration obligation to five years. Because five years had elapsed before Buchwald petitioned for modification, the district court ordered Buchwald removed from the registry. The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the district court erred in determining that Buchwald was eligible for modification under the provision. The Supreme Court granted the petition and transferred the case to the court of appeals. Upon further review, the Supreme Court annulled the writ, holding that the district court’s modification and removal order was legal under the statutory provision. View "State v. Iowa Dist. Court for Story County" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, among other charges. Defendant was a juvenile at the time of the kidnapping. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the kidnapping conviction. After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Graham v. Florida, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on the kidnapping conviction, contending that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The district court agreed that the sentence was unconstitutional and corrected Defendant’s conviction to life in prison with immediate parole eligibility. Defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that his sentence was unconstitutional under both the U.S. and the Iowa Constitutions. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence as corrected. The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed, holding that Defendant’s sentence was constitutional under the U.S. Constitution. Because Defendant’s claims that his sentence was illegal under the Iowa Constitution were not fully developed, the Court did not reach those claims. Remanded. View "State v. Hoeck" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Defendant appealed, claiming his counsel provided ineffective assistance because counsel permitted him to plead guilty without an established factual basis for each element of the crime. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded the case, concluding that the guilty plea colloquy failed to establish a factual basis for the underlying charge. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the district court, holding that the minutes of testimony provided an adequate factual basis to support Defendant's guilty plea. View "State v. Finney" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several crimes based on his involvement in a shooting. The jury found Defendant guilty of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, among other crimes. At the same time, the jury answered “no” to a special interrogatory asking whether Defendant had possessed a firearm. The district court concluded that the verdicts were inconsistent and proposed that the matter be resubmitted to the jury. However, Defendant and the State requested that the court accept the verdicts as rendered. Accordingly, the district court accepted the verdicts. Defendant subsequently appealed. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on the intimidation charge, finding the special interrogatory answer in direct conflict with the jury’s guilty verdict. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the verdicts were not inconsistent based on how the case was charged to the jury. View "State v. Merrett" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the stop of his vehicle after the police received an anonymous tip reporting a drunk driver. The Supreme Court reversed and suppressed all evidence seized from the stop, holding that the investigatory stop of Defendant was illegal under the Fourth Amendment, as a bare assertion by an anonymous tipster reporting drunk driving, without relaying to the police a personal observation of erratic driving or other facts to establish the driver is intoxicated, does not provide reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Kooima" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of escape. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury that the crime of absence from custody was a lesser included offense of escape. The court of appeals denied each claim raised by Defendant and affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the district court, holding that the crime of absence from custody is a lesser included offense of the crime of escape. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law