The Iowa Supreme Court discusses how timing of plea and sentencing in two different cases in two different counties can have an effect on sentencing options. If a defendant is convicted of a felony in one county, and then sentenced for a prior crime which took place earlier in the other county, the defendant is not eligible for a deferred judgment.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that police use of force reports are not confidential, and are subject to production under the Iowa Open Records Act.
Client’s Linn County disorderly conduct charge dismissed after completion of community service.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that separate parole violation case numbers, even if ultimately dismissed, or based on a dismissed charge, cannot currently be expunged under Iowa Code section 901C.2.
The Iowa Supreme Court discusses what “cohabiting” means for purposes of domestic abuse assault.
The U.S. Supreme Court once again confirms that a prosecutor has a duty to correct false testimony, and the State must turn over any and all evidence which may be exculpatory, including that which may be used to impeach its witnesses.
The Iowa Supreme Court has held that convictions for attempt to commit murder and assault on persons in certain occupations do not merge. Under the controlling statute, merger is not required unless there are “verdict[s] of guilty of more than one offense and such verdict[s]” establish that one offense is “necessarily included in another public offense.” Iowa Code § 701.9 (2019).
The Iowa Supreme Court discusses the law’s timeline requirements and potential independent evaluations when it comes to establishing mental/psychological competency to stand trial.
Iowa Supreme Court confirms that a sentencing judge’s failure to articulate why a consecutive sentence is being issued requires a remand and resentencing.
The Iowa Court of Appeals discusses the limitations of an intoxication defense, which negates specific intent, but is not a defense to general intent crimes. The fighting issue, then, is whether certain crimes are general intent or specific intent crimes.
An Oklahoma jury convicted Brenda Andrew of murdering her husband, Rob Andrew, and sentenced her to death. The State spent significant time at trial introducing evidence about Andrew’s sex life and about her failings as a mother and wife, much of which it later conceded was irrelevant. In a federal habeas petition, Andrew argued that this evidence had been so prejudicial as to violate the Due Process Clause. The Court of Appeals rejected that claim because, it thought, no holding of the U.S. Supreme Court established a general rule that the erroneous admission of prejudicial evidence could violate due process. That was wrong. By the time of Andrew’s trial, the U.S. Supreme Court had made clear that when “evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a mechanism for relief.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 825 (1991).
Proof of movement is required for a conviction for going armed with intent.