Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

This case that arose out of the same facts and presented the same issues addressed in a companion case also decided today, State v. Williams, __ N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2017). At issue was whether Defendants’ rights were violated by the failure to bring formal charges against them within forty-five days of their arrest. The district court denied Defendant’s motions to dismiss for violation of their speedy trial rights. Relying on case precedent interpreting the speedy trial to find that the time to file an indictment commenced when Defendant reasonably believed he had been arrested, the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court based on the reasoning in Williams, holding that the speedy indictment rule is properly interpreted to commence upon arrest only when the arrest is completed by making an initial appearance. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The speedy indictment rule is properly interpreted to commence upon arrest only when the arrest is completed by making an initial appearance.At issue in this case was whether Defendants’ rights were violated by the failure to bring formal charges against them within forty-five days of their arrest. The district court denied Defendants’ motions to dismiss for violation of their speedy indictment rights. The court of appeals reversed, relying on case precedent interpreting the speedy indictment rule to find that the time to file an indictment commenced when Defendant in this case reasonably believed he had been arrested. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the speedy indictment rule is triggered from the time a person is taken into custody, but only when the arrest is completed by taking the person before a magistrate for an initial appearance. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The speedy indictment rule commences upon arrest only when the arrest is completed by making an initial appearance. Therefore, the speedy indictment rule does not require the dismissal of a trial information against a defendant filed more than forty-five days after the defendant was taken into custody, interrogated, and released without the filing of a criminal complaint. This case arose out of the same facts and presented the same issues address in a companion case also decided today, State v. Williams, __ N.W.2d __ (Iowa 2017). The district court concluded that Defendant’s speedy indictment rights had not been violated. The court of appeals reversed. Based on the reasoning in Williams, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of third-degree sexual abuse as the result of a sex act that occurred involving Appellant, who was seventeen years old, and T.C., who was thirteen years old. On appeal, Appellant argued that his lifetime special sentence of parole and the lifetime requirement that he register as a sex offender violated the cruel and unusual punishment and due process clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s lifetime special sentence and lifetime registration requirement were not cruel and unusual punishment because a juvenile offender can petition the Iowa Department of Corrections for discharge from both the special sentence and the registration requirement. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

Iowa’s search warrants do not authorize anticipatory warrants, but where the federal government conducts a search pursuant to a valid federal search warrant for purposes of a federal investigation, the fact that such a warrant would not have been statutorily authorized in Iowa does not require the results of the search to be suppressed in Iowa courts.As a package containing methamphetamine entered this country from Mexico, federal agents intercepted the package and then made a controlled delivery of the package to its intended recipient in Iowa. The agents obtained from a federal magistrate judge a federal anticipatory search warrant authorizing a search to be conducted once the package reached its intended recipient. After a controlled delivery, the recipient of the package was detained, and federal agents searched his residents. The federal government turned the case over to Iowa for prosecution, and the recipient of the package (Defendant) was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and drug stamp violations. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court’s admission of the results of the search accorded a proper recognition to the bona fide actions of the federal government pursuant to that government’s lawful authority. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Jeffrey Anderson challenged a district court order placing him in a transitional release program at the Civil Commitment Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO) as a violation of his due process rights.After a jury determined that Anderson was a sexually violent predator, Anderson was civilly committed to CCUSO under the Sexually Violent Predators Act. Anderson was later granted release with supervision but violated the terms of his release-with-supervision plan. The district court revoked Anderson’s release-with-supervision status and ordered him placed at a transitional release program housed at CCUSO. It was this order that Anderson challenged on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the order revoking Anderson’s release-with-supervision status and placing him at the transitional release program at CCUSO did not violate his substantive or procedural due process rights under either the Iowa Constitution or the United States Constitution. View "In re Detention of Jeffrey Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Iowa’s theft-by-taking prohibition in Iowa Code 714.1(1) is limited to situations where a person obtains property without the consent or authority of another, and therefore, a defendant does not violate the statute when he or she obtains property or services by delivering a counterfeit check or money order. Defendant was convicted of “theft by taking” after she removed money from her bank account after depositing several counterfeit checks and money orders and later endorsed a counterfeit money order to a veterinary clinic to pay for boarding services. The Court reversed Defendant’s theft-by-taking convictions, holding that Defendant’s conduct did not constitute theft by taking. View "State v. Nall" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction entered after a retrial. The State prosecuted Defendant on the theory that Defendant aided and abetted Louis Woolheater in the murder of Lance Morningstar and was motivated to do so because Morningstar had an affair with Defendant’s wife. During Defendant’s second trial, Defendant was precluded from presenting out-of-court statements that he argued were admissible as statements against interest. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that Defendant should have been allowed to present to the jury the challenged statements because they would have given Defendant a powerful argument that Woolheater acted to “save his own skin” rather than at the direction or encouragement of Defendant. View "State v. Huser" on Justia Law

Deputy Dan Furlong prepared a warrant application to search a residence. The detective brought the application before a judicial officer and, without signing the application, orally swore to the trust of the application in the presence of the judicial officer. The judicial officer approved and signed the warrant. After the warrant was executed Defendants were charged with several drug charges. Defendants moved to suppress the results of the search based on the detective’s failure to sign the warrant application. The district court granted the motions to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Iowa Code 808.3 permits the warrant applicant to swear to the truth of the warrant application in the presence of the judicial officer even if, inadvertently, the applicant fails to sign it; and (2) in this case, the issuance of the warrant complied with section 808.3. View "State v. Angel" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of making a false statement on an application to acquire a weapon permit, in violation of Iowa Code 724.17. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the district court correctly interpreted the statute and that substantial evidence supported the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court misinterpreted the statute; and (2) under the correct interpretation of the statute, section 724.17 does not criminalize Defendant’s act of falsely answering an unauthorized question on the application to acquire a weapon permit. View "State v. Downey" on Justia Law