Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.In 2019, police charged Defendant with murder in the first degree for a murder committed in 1979. The charges were based on the results of a DNA test that was performed on a drinking straw that the police retrieved from an eating establishment where Defendant had eaten. A jury found Defendant guilty and sentenced him to prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence about DNA that police found on the straw that Defendant discarded or to analyze DNA attached to the straw; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give an instruction regarding federal sentencing law; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions for sexual abuse in the second degree, holding that the district court erred by giving the jury asymmetrical, particularized noncorroboration instructions focusing on the victims' testimony, requiring a new trial.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse and sentenced to a total of thirty-five years. The court of appeals reversed, holding that while the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions the noncorroboration instructions were improper, requiring a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the State's application for further review and affirmed the court of appeals' remand for a new trial, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions; but (2) the noncorroboration instruction given to the jury in this case improperly gained the jury's consideration of the victims' testimony, and the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter, holding that the circuit court committed no instructional error or constitutional violation in the underlying proceedings.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in instructing the jury on a "stand your ground" defense, which confused the jury about his actual justification defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his argument that the stand-your-ground defense wasn't in play, and thus that the stand-your-ground instruction was erroneously given; and (2) including the term "illegal activity" in the instructions did not violate Defendant's right to due process. View "State v. Ellison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements she made during a custodial interview, holding that some deception by law enforcement in this case did not exceed what the legal system tolerates.Defendant's husband died of strangulation after being zip-tied in a chair in his residence. Defendant claimed that her husband had tied himself up. During an interview at the police station, police officers told Defendant falsely that doctors were still working to save her husband's life. An hour and half into the interview the officers corrected their deception. The officers also made various reassurances and suggestions to the woman. The trial court granted Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the officers' lie about whether her husband had been pronounced dead did not affect Defendant's essentially knowing and voluntary waiver of her Miranda rights; and (2) the officers' expressions of sympathy did not amount either to express or implied promises of leniency that would create a fair risk of a false confession. View "State v. Park" on Justia Law

In this appeal of a restitution order that was cross-filed in a felony case and a dismissed misdemeanor case the Supreme Court declined to grant review in the dismissed misdemeanor case, granted felony review in the felony case, and held that the restitution order in this case was not illegal.In this case arising from a vehicle collision, the State charged Defendant with a simple misdemeanor. The State also charged Defendant with a felony. Defendant plead guilty to serious injury by vehicle. The court sentenced Defendant to prison but suspended his sentenced and ordered probation. The court further ordered Defendant to pay the victim restitution. Although the court dismissed a misdemeanor case, the court ordered Defendant to pay victim restitution with that case. The court ordered Defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $34,513 and cross-filed the order in both the felony case and dismissed misdemeanor case. The Supreme Court held (1) in the misdemeanor case, Defendant had no right of appeal; and (2) in the felony case, the restitution award was supported by substantial evidence. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law