MARCH 21, 2001

IOWA SUPREME COURT

State v. Hickman,  623 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 3/21/2001) Lesser-included offenses:  willful injury as included within first-degree. The “purposely” as used in first degree robbery’s element of “purposely inflicted or attempted to inflict a serious injury” is similar enough to willful injury’s element of “intended to cause serious injury”, all other element of the latter being subsumed in the greater, as to make willful injury a lesser included offenses of first-degree robbery as charged.

State v. Hook, 623 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa 3/21/2001) [1]  Guilty plea challenge not forsaken by failure to file motion in arrest where court did not inform of that necessity. Error was been preserved on defendant’s challenge to earlier guilty plea notwithstanding his failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment prior to sentencing.  Defendant had filed a written plea of guilty, which was supplemented by questions from the court.  The court erred in failing to address Rule 23 and its repercussions with the defendant, relying instead on an affirmative answer from counsel as to whether he “took up Rule 23” with the defendant.  While the colloquy requirements of Rule 8(2)(b) may be waived in a plea to a serious or aggravated misdemeanor, it does not waive the Rule 23 requirements: for felonies, aggravated or serious misdemeanors.  [2]  Full oral colloquy required for guilty plea. A written guilty plea to a felony, even when accompanied by partial questioning of the defendant, is not an adequate substitute for the full oral colloquy required by Rule 8(2)(b) for pleas to a felony.

State v. Horton, 623 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 3/26/2001) Probable cause for arrest of passenger in car where marijuana in plain view.  Probable cause existed to support the arrest of a passenger in a vehicle wherein marijuana roaches were observed in plain view in the ashtray.  “Close proximity to contraband, especially when it is in plain view, is sufficient to justify a suspect’s arrest, at least for further investigation.”  Note:  defendant was not deemed to have consented to the search by complying with the officer’s request that she empty her pocket. 

State v. Sanders, 623 N.W.2d 888 (Iowa 3/21/2001)  Discovery by State:  county attorney subpoenas.  County attorney may not use Iowa R. Cr. P. 5(6) subpoena to obtain defendant’s medical records after the charge has been filed.  While county attorney subpoenas can be used after charges are brought, Rule 13(3) requirements must be met if the subpoena is used to obtain materials under defendant’s control.  This defendant’s medical records (the results of a blood test undertaken for treatment) were deemed to be under his control by virtue of the nature of hospital records.  The State was therefore required to meet the prerequisites of Rule 13 but the record indicated no such demonstration.  The district court erred in permitting the State to subpoena the records. 

State v. Tippett,  624 N.W.2d  176 (Iowa 3/21/2001)  Failure to register as a sex offender.  The “willful” element of Failure to Register as a Sex Offender requires the State to show a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty.  While ignorance of the law is generally no excuse, the legislature may define a crime to require knowledge.  Knowledge of criminality is a particularly appropriate element when the charge is based on the failure to perform an act that is required only because of a statutory mandate.  This “willful” offense falls in that category.  As such, the State must prove the accused knew that the law required registration.  This burden was not satisfied where the releasing state’s law (at the time of release) did not specify defendant had to register in another state if he moved there, any “probability” that he was so advised was based on an unsupported presumption, and the fact that defendant moved around a lot to avoid registration did not prove that he knew the predicate fact:  that he had to register.