|
Motion
to adjudicate law points -- still available
Deviation from designated route
constituted overweight violation -- significance
State
v. Meadows, 696 N.W.2d 593 (Iowa 2005) (5/13/2005).
Motion remains
available in criminal cases.
While Iowa's
rules of civil procedure no longer recognize applications for
separate adjudication of points of law, such a procedure is
still available in criminal prosecutions by virtue of Iowa
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(2). The rule provides "any
defense, objection, or request which is capable of
determination without the trial of the general issue may be
raised before trial by motion." The district court's decisions
on rule 2.11(2) motions are reviewed for correction of errors
at law.
[2] Deviation from designated route constituted overweight
violation –
The defendant truck driver had a single-trip
overweight permit from the Iowa Department of Transportation
allowing him to carry a 119,800-pound rock crusher through the
state. However, he did not travel the route specified in the
permit, failing to exit Interstate 80 at Colfax to avoid a
limited-weight bridge. The Jasper County Attorney charged the
defendant with excessive gross weight in violation of Iowa
Code section 321.463. The defendant argued that he only should
be accountable for violating his permit under section 321E.16,
a violation which carried a much lower fine. The Iowa Supreme
Court sided with the State, finding the defendant subject to
the load limits on the portion of his route not authorized by
the DOT permit.
Sentencing --
Restitution -- Room & Board
State v. Abrahamson, 696 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 2005) (5/13/2005).
Pay-for-stay statute interpreted. Six inmates of
the Lucas County jail challenged the sheriff's bills for room
and board, computed at $50 per day, which were added to their
restitution orders. Iowa Code section 356.7 allows the sheriff
to charge adult prisoners for their stay at the county jail
and to seek reimbursement for the amount as part of the
defendant's restitution plan. The statute provides that upon
receipt of a claim for room and board reimbursement, "the
court shall approve the claim" in favor of the sheriff or
county for the amount owed by the prisoner. The defendant
claimed the "shall approve" language usurped the power of the
court to assess the merits of the claim. However, the Iowa
Supreme Court found that such language did not mean the court
must rubber-stamp a claim. The Court pointed to its "inherent
discretionary authority" to review such claims and set them
for hearing if necessary. In this case, the district court
properly held a hearing and assessed the claims under sections
910.2 and 901.3 which impose limits on the State's power to
require restitution.
[1] Other crime
evidence -- prior possession unnecessary to prove uncontested
element of knowledge;
[2] Defendant’s hostile reaction supports constructive
possession.
State
v. Henderson, 696 N.W.2d 5 (Iowa 2005) (5/6/2005)
Prior possession unnecessary to prove uncontested element of
knowledge. During the process of serving a writ of
removal and possession at the apartment rented solely by the
defendant, a deputy found drugs and paraphernalia in the
kitchen, living room and bedroom. Pursuant to Iowa Rule of
Evidence 5.404(b), the State offered evidence that the
defendant had been convicted of possession of marijuana four
years earlier to show that she had knowledge that the
substance on top of her refrigerator was marijuana. The Court
agreed that the prior conviction made it more probable that
she knew the substance found in her kitchen was marijuana.
However, the Court found the need for the evidence was slight
because her defense was that the drugs did not belong to her
not that she did not know their nature. On the other hand, the
prejudicial impact was strong because the jurors heard
evidence that the defendant had earlier committed the same
crime. The Court concluded that admission of the prior bad
acts evidence was an abuse of discretion and not harmless.
(Two concurring justices would have overruled State v. Gibb,
303 N.W.2d 673 (Iowa 1981) which held that a defendant's
concession of an issue does not preclude the State from
presenting evidence to establish that element of the crime.)
[2] Defendant’s
hostile reaction supports constructive possession.
The defendant was the only person listed on the lease to the
apartment which was entered by a deputy serving a writ of
removal and possession on behalf of the landlord. The deputy
found drugs and paraphernalia in the kitchen, living room and
the defendant’s bedroom. Another woman was present during the
eviction process, but she had only been staying at the
apartment for a few days and denied the drugs were hers.
Because the premises were not in the exclusive possession of
the defendant, the State was required to prove constructive
possession, i.e., the defendant had knowledge of the
presence of the controlled substance and the authority or
right to maintain control of it." The defendant’s defiant
opposition to the deputy’s presence in the apartment coupled
with the quantity of drugs and paraphernalia, their widespread
disbursement through the apartment and their location in
places not ordinarily used by a temporary visitor supported
the proof of constructive possession.
Vehicle searches
-- probable causes from suspicious movements and plain view
baggie; furtive movements key to finding possession
State v.
Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 2005) (5/6/2005)
Suspicious movements, baggie in plain view contribute to
probable cause. While patrolling a high drug crime
neighborhood, police officers signaled the defendant to stop
his vehicle based on a license plate violation. Rather than
stopping, the defendant began rooting around in the center
console, to the extent that his head dipped below the
dashboard, his car crossed three lanes and struck the curb.
The defendant immediately exited the car, where he was seized
by police. Another officer went to the open driver's door and
saw the corner of a baggie sticking out from the center
console, the same area where the defendant had been reaching.
The officer lifted the ashtray and found six individually
wrapped rocks of crack cocaine in the baggie. The Court
concluded the sum total of the facts together with the
officer's experience would lead a reasonable person to believe
that evidence of a crime would be found under the ash tray.
[2] Possession -- furtive movements key to
possession. Court finds constructive possession in spite
of the defendant's argument that he was not the owner of the
vehicle, denied ownership of the drugs, had no personal items
near the contraband, carried no drug paraphernalia and left no
fingerprints on the baggie. The factors supporting
constructive possession were the defendant's suspicious
activity before and after the stop, his incredible story about
the vehicle stalling before the collision, the drugs' location
nearest to the driver's side and in the place where he had
been rummaging before the stop, and the passenger's
cooperation with police.
Burglary -- occupied
structure -- attached garage
State
v. Wills, 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005) (5/6/2005) Attached
garage structurally no different from room of house. A
residence which included a three-car attached garage (the
garage and living quarters were separated only by a door and
shared the same roof) was a single occupied structure.
(defendant conceded the garage was an occupied structure under
Iowa Code section 702.12, but argued the living quarters and
attached garage are separate occupied structures and the jury
improperly found people present in the garage when in fact the
people were in the house asleep; a position which was rejected
by the court.)
|
