Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence resulting from a stop by an Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) Motor Vehicle Enforcement (MVE) officer, holding that the IDOT MVE lacked the authority to stop and arrest Defendant.The MVE in this case stopped Defendant for speeding in a construction zone. After determining that Defendant’s driver’s license had been revoked the MVE arrested Defendant and took him to jail. Defendant was convicted of driving while revoked. On appeal, Defendant argued that IDO MVE officers lacked authority at the time he was stopped to engage in general traffic enforcement under Iowa Code chapter 321 and that the stop and arrest could not be sustained as a citizen’s arrest under Iowa Code 804.9. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that today’s decision in Rilea v. Iowa Department of Transportation, __ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2018), required that Defendant’s conviction be vacated and this case remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Werner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held tha before May 11, 2017, Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) Motor Vehicle Enforcement (MVE) officers lacked authority to stop vehicles and issue speeding tickets or other traffic citations unrelated to operating authority, registration, size, weight, and load.In 2016, two motorists were separately cited by MVE officers for speeding in a construction zone. In declaratory order proceedings, the IDOT concluded that MVE officers possessed authority to stop vehicles and issue these citations. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, prior to May 11, 2017, IDOT peace officers were conferred only limited authority by chapter 321 of the Iowa Code to enforce violations relating to operating authority, registration, size, weight, and load of motor vehicles and trailers. View "Rilea v. Iowa Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Richard Eugene Noll’s sentence as a habitual offender for operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, holding that the habitual offender provisions in Iowa Code 902.8 and 902.9 do not apply to OWI, third and subsequent offenses.After he was sentenced, Noll filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing that the statutory scheme did not allow him to be sentenced as a habitual offender. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that Iowa Code 321J.2(5) prescribes the maximum and minimum sentence for OWI, third and subsequent offenses, and therefore, the habitual offender sentence contained in sections 902.8 and 902.9 did not apply to Noll. View "Noll v. Iowa District Court for Muscatine County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for assault causing bodily injury and child endangerment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury instructions were prejudicially erroneous.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions because the State did not establish that his actions exceeded the scope of legal corporal punishment, that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the jury instructions misled the jury. While rejecting Defendant’s first two assignments of error, the Supreme Court held that Defendant was prejudiced because the instructions misled the jury and that the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of operating while intoxicated (OWI), holding that the stop of the van in which Defendant was a passenger violated Iowa Const. art. I, section 8.After responding to a dispatch report of a vehicle in a roadside ditch, officers saw a van pass by on the road. Discovering that the van’s license plate was registered to another member of the same household that the vehicle in the ditch had been registered to, the officers followed the van and pulled it over. The driver of the car that had gone into the ditch was riding as a passenger in the van. That person, Defendant, was convicted of OWI. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the stop of the van was not permissible under the community caretaking doctrine. The Supreme Court agreed and reversed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the community caretaking exception did not apply under article I, section 8. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the three-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code 822.3 applies where a postconviction relief (PCR) petitioner files an untimely second petition for PCR alleging that counsel for his timely filed first petition for PCR was ineffective.The district court concluded that the second petition’s allegations of ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel were not grounds to avoid the three-year statutory bar. The court of appeals affirmed, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dible v. State, 557 N.W.2d 881, 883, 886 (Iowa 1996).The Supreme Court qualified Dible and held that where a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a successive PCR petition alleging that postconvcition counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, the timing of the filing of the second PCR petition relates back to the timing of the filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of Iowa Code section 822.3 if the successive PCR petition is filed promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR petition. The Court therefore vacated the court of appeals and reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case. View "Allison v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court adopted a tighter legal framework for warrantless inventory searches and seizures of automobiles under Iowa Const. art. I, 8 than provided under the recent precedents of the United States Supreme Court.In his challenge to the search and seizure provision of article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution Defendant noted that a number of state courts have rejected the approach of the United States Supreme Court - which generally provides that warrantless inventory searches of automobiles are permissible if they are conducted pursuant to law enforcement policies that govern the decision to impound the vehicle and the nature and scope of any subsequent search - in favor of a more restrictive approach that sharply limits warrantless searches and seizures of automobiles.The Supreme Court ultimately held (1) the police should advise the owner or operator of the vehicle of the options to impoundment, and when impoundment is necessary, personal items may be retrieved from the vehicle, and if the vehicle is impounded, containers found within the vehicle will not be opened but stored for safekeeping as a unit unless the owner or operator directs otherwise; and (2) the impoundment and search in this case was outside the bounds of any constitutionally permissible local impoundment and inventory policy. View "State v. Ingram" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declined to hold that the felony-murder rule violates due process under the Iowa or United States Constitution when it is applied to juvenile offenders pursuant to a theory of aiding and abetting.Defendant was a juvenile and unarmed when he participated in a marijuana robbery. A coparticipant, who had brought a gun to the crime, killed the robbery victim. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with immediate parole eligibility. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) applying the felony-murder rule to juvenile offenders based on a theory of aiding and abetting is constitutional; (2) Defendant’s sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, either categorically or as applied to Defendant; (3) the trial court provided the jury with proper instructions regarding the types of assault required to establish the forcible felony robbery element of felony murder; and (4) the record was inadequate for the Court to address some of Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the remainder of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Under the Iowa Constitution, a community caretaking seizure of a vehicle must be undertaken for genuine community caretaking purposes. In this case, a law enforcement officer was justified under the “community caretaking function” exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment and Iowa Const. art. I, 8 when he pulled behind a vehicle stopped by the side of a highway after 1 a.m. with its brake lights engaged and activated his emergency lights.Defendant was charged with operating while intoxicated, first offense. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop of his vehicle, arguing that the stop of his vehicle and person was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the conduct of the deputy in this case was not unconstitutional because the officer acted out of a genuine community caretaking motivation. View "State v. Coffman" on Justia Law

Defendant was entitled to a new trial after the State limited his access to his personal funds by freezing his assets prior to trial.Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury. Before trial, the trial court granted the State’s application for an order freezing all of Defendant’s assets. The order granting the freeze did not cite any authority or legal basis for the asset freeze. After Defendant’s convictions were affirmed on appeal he filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application arguing that the order freezing his assets was illegal and imposed for an improper purpose. Defendant also argued that the asset freeze adversely impacted his ability to defend himself by, among other things, inhibiting his ability to select his counsel of choice. The PCR court denied relief, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the asset freeze was unlawful; (2) defense counsel’s failure to properly challenge the freeze breached an essential duty; and (3) the consequences of the asset freeze violated Defendant’s constitutional right to be master of his defense, a structural error. View "Krogmann v. State" on Justia Law