Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Elmer Gaede, who owned a 120-acre farm together with his wife, died testate on February 2005. Elmer’s daughter, Diean, was named executor under the will. Diean designated Ivan Ackerman to render legal services in the administration of the estate. During the pendency of the probate proceedings, Elmer’s son James and his wife, who were leasing the farm, exercised the option under the lease agreement to purchase the farm. Diean later filed this legal malpractice lawsuit against Ackerman, alleging that Ackerman failed to adequately protect her personal interests relating to the enforceability of the option. The district court granted summary judgment for Ackerman, determining that Ackerman did not have a duty to protect Diean’s personal interests. The court of appeals reversed, holding that a factual dispute existed over the question of whether Diean had a reasonable expectation that Ackerman was representing her personal interests. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that insufficient facts supported Diean’s claim that Ackerman reasonably understood that Diean expected him to protect her personal interests in challenging the option. View "Sabin v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to three counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent and one count of a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty to three counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, as there was no factual basis to support three separate and distinct acts. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court on the three separate charges of intimidation with a dangerous weapon, holding that trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Defendant to plead guilty to the three separate charges when no factual basis existed to establish Defendant's shooting of his gun in the air was three separate and distinct acts. Remanded. View "State v. Gines" on Justia Law

Defendant approached two separate tellers at a bank and demanded that each teller give him money from their cash drawers. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of robbery in the second degree. On appeal, Defendant contended that only one robbery occurred and that substantial evidence did not support the two robbery convictions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not impose an illegal sentence by failing to combine the two robbery convictions into a single count, as the record contained substantial evidence that Defendant had the intent to commit two separate and distinct thefts; and (2) substantial evidence supported the two robbery convictions. View "State v. Copenhaver" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and five counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s convictions on three counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent and affirmed his remaining convictions, holding (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal after the verdict on the intimidation counts because the evidence did not support the verdicts that Defendant committed five separate and distinct acts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent; (2) however, substantial evidence supported two separate and distinct crimes of intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent; (3) the record was inadequate to decide Defendant’s separate allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to admit certain photographs into evidence. Remanded. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was terminated from his employment as dean of students and vice president of student services at the University of Iowa by the University's president, Sally Mason, after a report from the Stolar Partnership (Stolar), a law firm retained by the Board of Regents (Regents) to investigate the University's response to a sexual assault of a student athlete by other student athletes, came out highly critical of Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the University, Mason, the Regents, and Stolar for wrongful termination and related causes of action. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in denying Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery of written communications between Stolar and the Regents based on its finding that the attorney-client privilege protected the communications from disclosure; and (2) in granting summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff's various claims.View "Jones v. Univ. of Iowa" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six counts of child endangerment and sentenced to fifty years in prison. The victim was Defendant's seven-week-old son. The baby suffered fifteen rib fractures, a broken arm, and a permanent brain injury over a three-week period. The victim's mother (Mother) pled guilty to child endangerment. On appeal, the Supreme Court (1) vacated Defendant's convictions as to two counts for the baby's broken ribs, holding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions; (2) reversed the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion for an in camera review of Mother's mental health records under Iowa Code 622.10(4), a statute the Court upheld as constitutional; and (3) otherwise affirmed. View "State v. Neiderbach" on Justia Law

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

After Appellant drove her car off the road and destroyed a mailbox, Appellant gave a urine sample that tested positive for controlled substances. Based on the test results, the Iowa Department of Transportation revoked Appellant’s license for 180 days. Appellant contested her revocation, asserting that the prescription-drug defense under Iowa Code 321J.2(11) applied in her case. An administrative law judge denied the appeal, finding that the evidence in this case established the elements of the statutory prescription-drug defense but that the prescription-drug defense did not apply in administrative license revocation proceedings. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the prescription-drug defense is available in license revocation proceedings. View "Bearinger v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp." 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