|
State v.
Davis,
___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 03-0888) (May 12, 2004).
Search warrants – good faith exception applied to defective
out-of-state warrant from jurisdiction recognizing exception.
“[T]he good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as
recognized by Missouri applies to the Missouri search
warrants”. Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a
search warrant obtained and executed in Missouri, although
apparently defective in one [Missouri law] statutory respect,
should have been denied. The search warrants met all the
requirements of the 4th Amendment and the Iowa constitutional
equivalent, were issued on probable cause, were supported by
oath, and particularly described the place to be searched and
thing to be seized. As such, the good faith exception
applied in the adjudication of defendant’s motion to suppress
the results of the Missouri warrant. Although Iowa does not
recognize the good faith requirement in the context of Iowa
warrants scrutinized under the Iowa constitution, its courts
will not give more protection (suppressing the warrant’s
fruits) to a defective out-of-state warrant than would have
been afforded by the issuing jurisdiction.
State
v. Hagedorn,
___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 03-0232) (Iowa 5/12/2004)
Burglary – estranged husband’s lack of “right, license or
privilege” to enter. Sufficient evidence existed that
defendant did not have “right, license or privilege” to enter
his estranged wife’s home (notwithstanding that he had
previously lived there or that his estranged wife and their
children lived there presently) even without a restraining
order preventing him from entering. “The focus under our
burglary statute is on whether the defendant had any
possessory or occupancy interest in the premises at the time
of entry.” Factors showing defendant’s lack of occupancy or
possessory interest in the house included: (1) defendant no
longer lived in the residence, (2) his personal belongings had
been boxed and were on the porch for him to retrieve, (3)
defendant had been told emphatically that he was not welcome
and should stay away, (4) defendant knew that his wife had
changed the locks after an earlier incident when he came over
to the house uninvited. As such, defendant had neither a
possessory or occupancy interest in the house nor the right,
license or privilege to enter.
State
v. Martinez,
___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 02-1278) (Iowa 5/12/2004)
Character evidence – proper use.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to
instruct jury that evidence of defendant’s character could be
used as direct evidence of his innocence, instead instructing
that such evidence could be used to evaluate defendant’s
credibility (see Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.607 and 5.608).
Character evidence may be considered on issues of guilt only
if such evidence is “pertinent”, meaning that it is
particularly involved in the crime alleged (Iowa R. Evid.
5.404(a)(1)). Honesty, trustworthiness and dependability are
not “pertinent” to the crimes of delivery of methamphetamine
and failure to affix a tax stamp.
State
v. Truesdell,
___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 02-1529) (Iowa 5/12/2004)
[1] Possession of precursor with intent to manufacture
controlled substance – insufficient evidence of intent.
Insufficient evidence exists to support a conviction of
possession of a precursor with intent to manufacture a
controlled substance, on the element of “with intent to
manufacture”, where, without more evidence, defendant
“possesses products containing a controlled substance
precursor in a quantity incompatible with normal personal
consumption but compatible with the quantity needed to
manufacture a standard batch of meth.” [Note: Given a
change in the statute effective July 1, 2004, (defendant will
merely need to be shown to have had an intent “that the
product be used to manufacture any controlled substance”,
as opposed to a required showing that defendant had the
intent to use the product to manufacture any controlled
substance) and a prior opinion of the Iowa Court of Appeals on
the subject, the Court reads the law in effect at the time of
defendant’s crime to require a showing that defendant had the
intent to manufacture.) [2] Ineffective assistance of
counsel – failure to claim insufficient evidence. While
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are normally best
resolved in postconviction proceedings, claims that defense
counsel failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence “can
normally be decided on direct appeal.” [3] OWI –
sufficient evidence. The following evidence was deemed to
constitute substantial evidence to support defendant’s
conviction of OWI: first, his “unusual and audacious”
behavior in stealing nearly all of a store’s stock of cold
medicine “showed an impaired judgment and ability to reason”.
Second, he was observed driving away “at a high rate of speed”
and nearly struck employees in the parking lot. Third,
defendant “acknowledged having consumed alcohol prior to the
and police observed numerous signs of alcohol intoxication
after he was arrested an hour or so after he was observed
operating the vehicle.”
|
