Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Abel Gomez Medina, who was convicted of sexual abuse and indecent contact with a minor. The minor, identified as Dorothy, was his stepdaughter. She reported the abuse to her school counselor, stating that it had been ongoing since she was eleven years old. Dorothy's stepbrother, Frank, also testified that he had witnessed inappropriate behavior between Medina and Dorothy. The defense presented witnesses who claimed they had never seen anything inappropriate between Medina and Dorothy.Prior to the trial, the State moved to permit Dorothy and Frank to testify via closed-circuit television, citing the potential trauma caused by in-person testimony. The district court granted this for Dorothy but denied it for Frank. During the trial, Dorothy turned eighteen and Medina objected to her continuing to testify via closed-circuit television, arguing that the statute permitting such testimony only applied to minors. The district court overruled this objection, citing a different paragraph of the statute that allowed for closed-circuit testimony for victims or witnesses with mental illnesses, regardless of age.Medina appealed his conviction, arguing that allowing Dorothy to testify via closed-circuit television violated both the Iowa Code and the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals affirmed Medina's convictions, holding that permitting Dorothy’s closed-circuit testimony satisfied constitutional requirements while she was a minor, and that by meeting the requirements under Iowa Code after she turned eighteen, Medina’s claim of a Confrontation Clause violation similarly failed. Medina then filed an application for further review of the court of appeals ruling, which was granted by the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. It concluded that Medina had failed to preserve error on his Confrontation Clause argument concerning Dorothy’s testimony after she turned eighteen. The court also found that the district court had properly applied the statute to permit Dorothy’s closed-circuit testimony, based on the evidence presented at the pretrial hearing. The court let the court of appeals decision stand on Medina's arguments that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the prosecutor to comment during closing argument and by excluding 911 call logs. View "State v. Medina" on Justia Law

The case involves two attorneys, Jeffrey Peterzalek and Molly Weber, who sought to quash subpoenas for their depositions in a civil rights case brought by Charis Paulson against her employers, the State of Iowa and the Iowa Department of Public Safety (DPS). Paulson alleged gender-motivated discrimination and retaliation. Weber had represented DPS in its response to Paulson's civil rights complaint before the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), while Peterzalek had represented DPS and its leaders in various other matters over the years. The district court declined to quash the subpoenas but ordered that the depositions be sealed. The attorneys then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa granted the writ and retained the case. The attorneys argued that the court should adopt the Shelton test, which narrowly limits the circumstances in which opposing counsel may be deposed. They also argued that they should not be deposed or, alternatively, that substantial limitations should be imposed if their depositions were allowed.The Supreme Court of Iowa agreed with the attorneys' argument to adopt the Shelton test. Applying the test, the court concluded that Weber's deposition should be quashed as she was opposing counsel in the ongoing dispute and the information sought could be obtained by other means and was protected by the work-product doctrine. However, the court affirmed the district court's refusal to quash the subpoena for Peterzalek's deposition, as he was not opposing counsel in the ongoing dispute. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the entry of an order quashing the subpoena for Weber's deposition. View "Peterzalek v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

An elderly woman, Janice Geerdes, and her long-time friend, Albert Gomez Cruz, had a partnership raising hogs on a piece of land. Initially, Janice deeded half of her interest in the land to Albert. Over a decade later, she deeded the rest of her interest in the land to Albert, receiving nothing in return. About six months later, Janice’s adult daughters were appointed her conservator and guardian. The conservator challenged the validity of the quitclaim deed based on undue influence and lack of capacity.The district court set aside the deed, finding that there was undue influence through a confidential relationship and that Janice lacked the necessary capacity to deed her interest in the land. The court of appeals affirmed the decision on the basis of lack of capacity.The Supreme Court of Iowa, however, disagreed with the lower courts. The Supreme Court found that the conservator did not establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that there was undue influence or that Janice lacked capacity at the time of the gift. The court found that the lower courts gave too much weight to the perceived improvidence of the transaction and too little weight to the testimony of the third-party accountant who witnessed the transaction. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the district court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Conservatorship of Janice Geerdes v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Emilio Puente, a police officer for the City of Iowa City, resigned from his position and later attempted to rescind his resignation. When the City rejected his attempt, Puente filed an action with the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City (Commission) for review of the City’s refusal to reinstate him. The Commission dismissed Puente's complaint, agreeing with the City that it was untimely. Puente then filed a petition for judicial review in the Johnson County District Court, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The court concluded that Puente’s “petition for judicial review” was not a “notice of appeal” as required by Iowa Code § 400.27.The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. The court of appeals relied on the differences between a chapter 17A proceeding and an appeal under section 400.27 to conclude that the petition for judicial review could not be deemed a notice of appeal. The court of appeals noted that the two are initiated differently, have different venue provisions and service requirements, and have different standards and scopes of review.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court found that Puente had substantially complied with the requirements for filing a notice of appeal from the Commission’s decision to the district court. The court noted that Puente's petition sought "judicial review" of the Commission’s decision, identifying the Commission as a “respondent” rather than a “defendant.” The court concluded that Puente's reference to the wrong Code provision for venue did not mean he failed to substantially comply with the correct Code provision. The court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the district court judgment dismissing Puente’s appeal from the Commission’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Puente v. Civil Service Commission of Iowa City" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over a postnuptial modification of a premarital agreement. The parties, David and Elizabeth Roberts, entered into a premarital agreement before their marriage in 1993. The agreement stipulated that each spouse waived their statutory elective share, but agreed that each would take one-third of the other’s net real property interests at the time of death. Twenty-four years later, the parties executed a new agreement, a "partial revocation" of the premarital agreement, which maintained the waiver of elective share but relinquished their one-third share in each other’s real property investments at the time of death. Elizabeth received approximately $15,000 cash and $50,000 in debt repayment or forgiveness from David, plus a monthly living allowance for as long as the couple remained married. After David's death, Elizabeth contested the validity of this partial revocation.The district court rejected Elizabeth's challenge and enforced the partial revocation. Elizabeth appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court concluded that under Iowa law, specifically Iowa Code sections 596.7 and 597.2, a postmarital amendment to a premarital agreement relating to inchoate dower interests in property is not enforceable. The court found that the partial revocation was essentially an amendment, not a revocation, and that Iowa law does not permit married persons who previously entered into a premarital agreement to enter into a new agreement during their marriage relating to inchoate dower interests in each other’s property. The court remanded the case for further proceedings regarding counterclaims made by David's son, Eric, who asked that if the partial revocation agreement is invalidated, Elizabeth should be required to relinquish the benefits she received as a result thereof to avoid unjust enrichment. View "Roberts v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The case involves a convicted felon, Adam Aaron Rhodes, who was charged with possession of a firearm, a muzzleloader replica of an antique firearm, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(1). Rhodes argued that his muzzleloader, used to kill a deer, was not a firearm within the meaning of the statute because it was a replica of an antique firearm, which is excluded from the statutory definition of "offensive weapon," and federal law excludes such muzzleloaders from the federal definition of "firearm."The district court disagreed with Rhodes, finding him guilty of possessing a "firearm" under the common meaning of the term and the court's precedent. The court defined a "firearm" broadly to include "any instrument which will or is designed to discharge a projectile by the force of a chemical explosive such as gun powder." The court also rejected several affirmative defenses raised by Rhodes, including a void for vagueness constitutional challenge. Rhodes was sentenced to probation for a period not to exceed five years.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that Rhodes's muzzleloader falls within the meaning of "firearm" in section 724.26. The court reasoned that the Iowa legislature declined to enact the federal definition of "firearm" and that the court's precedents apply the common meaning of "firearm" that encompasses this muzzleloader rifle. The court also rejected Rhodes's argument that the court should follow the federal felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), when interpreting Iowa’s felon-in-possession statute. The court concluded that the Iowa legislature is free to adopt the federal exception for antique firearms but has not done so. View "State of Iowa v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

The case involves Dee Delaney, an employee who suffered two separate injuries to her legs in 1986 and 2019. The latter injury, which occurred during her employment with Nordstrom, Inc., required knee surgery and resulted in lymphedema in Delaney's lower right leg and foot. Delaney filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against Nordstrom and the Second Injury Fund of Iowa (the Fund). She reached a settlement with Nordstrom and proceeded to arbitration against the Fund. The workers’ compensation commissioner found that Delaney’s lymphedema was a sequela of her work injury and that lymphedema is per se an injury to the body as a whole and not an injury to a scheduled member. The commissioner concluded that because Delaney suffered a sequela injury to the body as a whole, she was not entitled to Fund benefits under Iowa Code section 85.64 (2019).The Iowa District Court for Polk County affirmed the workers’ compensation commissioner’s denial of Second Injury Fund benefits to Delaney. The court agreed with the commissioner's interpretation of section 85.64, which led to the conclusion that Delaney was not entitled to Fund benefits because her lymphedema was considered an injury to the body as a whole, not an injury to a scheduled member.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's judgment and vacated the decision of the court of appeals. The court held that the commissioner erred in its interpretation and application of section 85.64. The court found that whether an injury results in the “loss of use” to a scheduled member or extends to the body as a whole is a fact-based inquiry that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that an injury resulting in the loss of use of a scheduled member was a qualifying injury under section 85.64, even if the injury caused a sequela injury to the body as a whole. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand this matter to the workers’ compensation commissioner for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Delaney v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant, Brandon Lee, who was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery, willful injury causing serious injury, willful injury causing bodily injury, theft in the first degree, and impersonating a public official. The charges stemmed from an incident where Lee, posing as a law enforcement officer, assaulted a husband and wife in their home and stole $50,000 from their safe.The case was first heard in the Iowa District Court for Linn County, where Lee was found guilty of all six charges. He was sentenced to twenty-five years for each conviction of robbery in the first degree, ten years for willful injury causing serious injury, five years for willful injury causing bodily injury, ten years for theft in the first degree, and two years for impersonating a public official. The sentences for the two robbery convictions were ordered to be served consecutively, for a total of fifty years, with a minimum sentence of thirty years before being eligible for parole. The remaining sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the robbery convictions.The case was then brought to the Supreme Court of Iowa on appeal. Lee argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for two counts of first-degree robbery, asserting that he did not intend to commit two separate and distinct thefts. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Lee intended to commit two separate and distinct thefts. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed both convictions and sentences for first-degree robbery. View "State of Iowa v. Lee" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Iowa was asked to determine who should bear the costs of a technology vendor hired to review a large volume of emails seized under a search warrant for potential attorney-client privileged communications. The emails belonged to a criminal defendant, Craig Juan Merrill, who was charged with multiple counts of ongoing criminal conduct, theft, assault, and misconduct in office. The search warrant stipulated that the seized materials would be reviewed by the district court to ensure no attorney-client privileged materials were inadvertently handed over to the prosecution.However, due to the large volume of emails and technical difficulties, the district court was unable to complete the review and decided to hire a technology vendor to assist. The question of who should bear the costs of this vendor became a point of contention. The district court initially ordered the prosecution to pay the costs, but left open the possibility that the costs could be taxed to the defendant at the conclusion of the case.The State of Iowa filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Iowa, arguing that the district court acted illegally in assessing the costs of the privilege review against the prosecution. The State contended that the judicial branch should bear the costs, as the vendor was effectively acting as a special master to assist the court.The Supreme Court of Iowa sustained the writ, ruling that the judicial branch should be responsible for the costs of the technology vendor. The court reasoned that the district court had voluntarily assumed the responsibility of conducting the initial privilege review and, when it was unable to do so, it was compelled to employ a third-party vendor. Under these unique circumstances, the court concluded that the judicial branch must bear the costs of the vendor it employed. View "State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court For Emmet County" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Lori Randolph, who was injured after falling down stairs in a rental property owned by Aidan, LLC. Randolph sued Aidan, alleging negligence in failing to provide safe stairs. Aidan, in turn, filed a third-party claim against Sioux City, asserting that a city employee had inspected the property and declared it compliant with the municipal code. Aidan claimed that the city was negligent in hiring, retaining, or supervising the unqualified inspector, and thus, should indemnify Aidan for any damages owed to Randolph. Sioux City moved to dismiss Aidan’s claim, arguing it was immune under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j).The district court denied Sioux City's motion to dismiss Aidan's claim. Sioux City and Randolph requested interlocutory review, which was granted. The Supreme Court of Iowa was tasked with reviewing the denial of Sioux City's motion for the correction of errors at law.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that Sioux City was immune from Aidan's claim under Iowa Code section 670.4(1)(j). The court reasoned that Aidan's claim for negligent hiring was "based upon" the negligence of Sioux City's employee in inspecting the stairs. Therefore, the claim fell within the scope of the immunity provided by section 670.4(1)(j). The court remanded the case for further proceedings, including the dismissal of Aidan's claim against Sioux City. View "Randolph v. Aidan, LLC" on Justia Law