Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Petitioners' applications for postconviction relief, holding that Petitioners' challenges to the State's allocation of its resources in the prison system were without merit.Petitioners were several male inmates serving time for sex-related offenses. Due to limits on resources, inmates were eligible for the sex offender treatment program, the completion of which was a requirement to be considered meaningfully for parole, only as the inmate neared his tentative discharge date. Petitioners brought applications for postconviction relief, arguing that this circumstance violated their constitutional due process rights. The district court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the existing waiting list prioritizing admission to treatment based on tenantive discharge date, was a reasonable way to decide when an offender gets admitted to treatment and that the district court did not err in denying Petitioners' applications for postconviction relief. View "Bomgaars v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexual abuse of a child, his granddaughter, holding that the district court erred by excluding evidence that another person, a teenager who testified for the State, sexually abused the victim.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the Supreme Court should overrule State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1994), which would result in the reversal of his conviction; and (2) the district court erred in applying the "constitutional rights" exception to the rape shield law, Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(b)(1)(C). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this Court declines to overrule Pearson; and (2) excluding Defendant's cross-examination of his granddaughter and the teenager about their relationship violated Defendant's rights under the Confrontation and Due Process Clauses and the constitutional rights exception to the rape shield law. View "State v. Montgomery" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the trial information one week prior to the day of trial.The State charged Defendant with, among other offenses, assault causing bodily injury. One week prior to trial, the State moved to amend the trial information to charge Defendant with willful injury causing bodily injury. The district court allowed the amendment, concluding that the elements were substantially similar and the underlying facts remained the same. Defendant was subsequently found guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding the court of appeals erred in relying on State v. Brisco, 816 N.W.2d 415 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012), to conclude that the charge of willful injury causing bodily injury was not wholly new and different from assault causing bodily injury. View "State v. Vandermark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon, holding that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the trial information on the day of trial.The State filed a trial information charging Defendant with assault causing bodily injury. On the first day of trial, the State moved to amend the charge of assault causing bodily injury to assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon. The district court allowed the amendment, and a jury found Defendant guilty of the amended charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the amended trial information charged a wholly new and different offense within the meaning of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.4(8)(a), and the district court erred in allowing the amendment. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexually abusing his seven-year-old daughter, K.W., holding that the trial court erred by admitting videos of two forensic interviews in which K.W. described the abuse and the admission was not harmless error.Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree, enticing a minor, and indecent exposure. On appeal, Defendant argued that the forensic interview videos involving K.W. and played for the jury were inadmissible hearsay and did not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that neither interview was admissible under the Court's hearsay rules and that the error was not harmless. View "State v. Skahill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Defendant's convictions of three misdemeanor drug offenses and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that remand was required for the district court to apply the standard set forth in State v. Wright, 961 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2021).Last term, in Wright, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers conducted an unconstitutional seizure and search when they seized and searched garbage bags left out for collection without first obtaining a warrant. In the instant case, Defendant argued that a sheriff's deputy violated his constitutional rights by seizing and searching his trash without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for the district court to hold a hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence without consideration of the evidence obtained during the trash pull. View "State v. Kuuttila" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the decision of the court of appeals rejecting a sex offender's challenge to two aspects of his lifetime special parole sentence, holding that there was no error.Defendant pled guilty to one count each of sexual abuse in the third degree, lascivious acts with a child, and indecent contact with a child. Following the revocation of his parole, Defendant returned to prison and filed this application for post conviction relief claiming that his plea counsel his ineffectively for failing adequately to inform him of the rules and requirements of his special sentence. The district court denied the application. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's plea counsel was not constitutionally ineffective; and (2) Defendant's claim that the parole and ex-offender-treatment-program rules were unconstitutional as applied to him was unavailing. View "Doss v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Defendant's drug-related convictions, second offense, holding that, consistent with this Court's opinion in State v. Wright, __ N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2021), filed today, law enforcement officers conducted an unreasonable seizure and search when they seized and searched garbage bags left out for collection without first obtaining a warrant.On appeal, Defendant argued that two sheriff's deputies violated his federal and state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when they seized and searched a trash bag outside Defendant's residence without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that remand was required in order for the district court to hold a hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence without consideration of the evidence and information obtained during a trash pull used to support their warrant application. View "State v. Hahn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellant's delayed appeal of the postconviction court's summary judgment denial of his third application for postconviction relief, holding that this Court lacked jurisdiction over the matter.Appellant was convicted of first-degree burglary and first-degree robbery and sentenced to two twenty-five-year sentences to run concurrently. Later, Appellant filed a third application for postconviction relief. The postconviction court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to present the Court with a basis to grant a delayed appeal six months after the deadline. View "Anderson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's constitutional challenge to Iowa Code 321J.16 and joining the majority of courts holding that it is not an unconstitutional penalty to admit into evidence Defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test, holding that the best course is to overrule State v. Pettijohn, 899 N.W.2d 1, 38-39 (Iowa 2017).After denying Defendant's motion in liming to exclude evidence of her refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test Defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated. On appeal, Defendant challenged the constitutionality of section 321J.16, which allows into evidence a defendant's test refusal. Specifically, Defendant argued that Pettijohn, which held that a search warrant was required for a breathalyzer test of an intoxicated boater, should be extended to drunken driving cases. The Supreme Court (1) overruled Pettijohn and held that search warrants are not required for breathalyzer tests of either boaters or drivers when law enforcement has probable cause to believe that intoxicated boating or driving has occurred; and (2) it is not an unconstitutional penalty to admit into evidence a defendant's refusal to submit to a breath test. View "State v. Kilby" on Justia Law