Iowa Court of Appeals rules there is insufficient evidence of aiding and abetting to support a conviction for eluding or child endangerment.
The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that there isn’t the same sentencing reduction for drug offenses when there is a firearms enhancement to the sentence.
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that a Defendant asking if his wife is going to come is sufficient to invoke the Iowa Code section 804.20 right to make a call or have communication with a family member, and as such, failing to inform the Defendant that he could call her was a violation of his rights, requiring suppression of evidence.
Iowa Court of Appeals suppresses evidence obtained as a result of unconstitutional entry into the home even though the officer did so out of concern for the welfare of a minor child. Still, the concerns and facts were not sufficient to justify a warrantless entry. Another adult child merely opening the door and walking away is not consent or permission to enter.
Iowa Court of Appeals rules that telephonic or electronic threats of harm do not constitute an assault, and hence a no contact order should not have been granted.
Forcible felony mandatory minimum sentence can be reduced for a first offense of this kind, and a court must be aware of and consider the factors weighing favor of reduction.
A Davenport police officer mistakenly arrested Troy Ford based on an outstanding warrant for a different individual. Ford argued the search incident to that invalid arrest was unreasonable and the district court should have suppressed the marijuana found. Because the officer did not act reasonably in searching Ford before verifying his identity as the person named in the warrant, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that the evidence should have been suppressed.
For first degree murder, the state must prove specific intent to kill existed at the time of the homicidal act; and it is improper to suggest the defendant’s specific intent may exist at any time. Even if such specific intent existed in the past, it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that such specific intent existed at the time of the act, as opposed to a spur of the moment decision.
When a defendant makes concurrence of the court a condition of a plea pursuant to a plea agreement the court must allow the defendant to withdraw the plea if the judge does not agree to be bound by the plea agreement.
Mental health records and evidence of suicidal ideation or prior suicide attempt by alleged victim are relevant in determining whether decedent was murdered or committed suicide.
Aiding and abetting requires a specific intent jury instruction specifically pertaining to the requirements of aiding and abetting, and failure to provide such instructions is reversible error and requires a new trial.