Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree robbery and willful injury causing serious injury, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Defendant's convictions stemmed from his role in the baseball bat attack of a man outside his apartment complex, and a surveillance camera captured some of the altercation. The Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of first-degree robbery based on the victim's testimony and the corroborating surveillance video evidence of the attack; (2) the district court's failure to merge the convictions was not erroneous; and (3) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's decision to continue the trial for nine days due primarily to juror illness. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court granting the State's delinquency petition against Defendant and its motion to waive jurisdiction to allow for Defendant's prosecution as an adult, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in granting the waiver and that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction.One month after his seventeenth birthday Defendant committed second-degree sexual abuse. The juvenile court issued an order waiving jurisdiction, concluding that there were not reasonable prospectives for rehabilitating Defendant if the juvenile court retained jurisdiction and that the waiver was in the bests interests of Defendant and the community. Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a rational fact finder could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed second-degree sexual abuse based on the evidence presented; and (2) the juvenile court's waiver decision was supported by the evidence and reasonable. View "State v. Erdman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment granted by the district court in favor of the City of Muscatine on claims seeking to hold the City vicariously liable for a former police officer's sexual assault, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief as to her allegations of error.Plaintiff, who was drunk, was offered a ride to a hotel by a police officer. The officer followed Plaintiff to her room and raped her. The officer was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse of an incapacitated person. Plaintiff later sued the officer and the City alleging several tort causes of action. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, determining that Plaintiff failed to prove that the assault was within the scope of the officer's employment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that Plaintiff's sexual assault fell outside his scope of employment; and (2) this Court declines to adopt Plaintiff's proposed aided-by-agency theory to impose vicarious liability on the City. View "Martin v. Tovar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count each of willful injury and intimidation with a deadly weapon, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss because the State charged him more than one year after the three-year statute-of-limitations period was over. In response, the State argued that the district court correctly determined that the statute of limitations tolled between May 25, 2016 and September 21, 2020. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that the district court correctly found that the statute of limitations tolled during the relevant period because Defendant was not publicly resident in Iowa. View "State v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court imposed an illegal sentence by choosing not to impose the requirements set forth in Iowa Code 124.401(5)(f).Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, a class D felony, in violation of section 124.401(5). At the sentencing hearing, Defendant asked that he be sentenced to a fine. The State responded that a fine alone would be an illegal sentence under Iowa Code 901.5. The district court orally sentenced Defendant to the minimum fine only. The State filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the district court's fine-only sentence was illegal because, in choosing not to impose probation subject to random drug testing and at least a suspended sentence of the minimum forty-eight-hour term of imprisonment required under section 124.401(5)(f), the sentence lacked statutory authorization. View "State v. Iowa District Court for Woodbury County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual abuse in the third degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions on his allegations of error.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions but concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order attempting to correct Defendant's sentence and remanding the case for the district court to correct the sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Defendant was previously convicted of an act of sexual abuse for purposes of the sentencing enhancement; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's challenge brought under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (3) any error in the court's decision to excuse a juror for cause did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Booker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant's motion.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of domestic abuse assault, third offense. The district court sentenced Appellant to an indefinite period of incarceration not to exceed five years and also imposed a mandatory minimum sentence under Iowa Code 902.13. Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied. Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, raising for the first time the argument that his sentence was illegal because he was not convicted of a third domestic abuse assault, third offense. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief. View "Anderson v. Iowa District Court" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that Defendants discriminated against prospective tenants in violation of municipal law by steering prospective tenants of a protected religion or national origin away from their rental properties, holding that there was insufficient evidence against Defendants under the proper jury instruction.The Des Moines Civil and Human Rights Commission brought this action alleging that Defendants, a husband and wife who owned rental properties together, engaged in housing discrimination. The jury found the husband was liable for steering and imposed a civil penalty of $50,000 against him. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the steering charge against the husband, holding that the district court's instructions misled the jury to the husband's detriment. View "Des Moines Civil & Human Rights Comm'n v. Knueven" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and two counts of failure to possess a tax stamp, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Officers entered Defendant's apartment without a warrant over the objections of the occupants. They then obtained a search warrant, finding evidence resulting in criminal charges. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the initial warrantless entry was unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the search was justified under the emergency aid doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the emergency aid doctrine permitted the police officers' entry into the residents to render emergency aid to a possible shooting victim hidden inside. View "State v. Youm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, harassment of a public official, and interference with official acts, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant was out drinking when his wife called him. When Defendant arrived home, his wife had been arrested for child endangerment and was handcuffed in a squad car. Knowing Defendant was agitated, the followed him inside his home where a social worker was interviewing three children in her investigation of child endangerment. At issue was whether the police needed a warrant to enter the home to protect the social worker. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officers' warrantless entry under these exigent circumstances did not violate Defendant's rights pursuant to the Fourth Amendment or Iowa Const. I, 8. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law