UPDATES & ANALYSIS

9.10

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases Sept. 11 and 12

by Rox Laird | September 10, 2024

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases Sept. 11 and 12. Four other cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of those cases. The Court will travel to Harlan Sept. 24 to hear arguments in one case. On Brief will preview that case closer to that date.  [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in these cases.]

 

State v. Miller

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 11, 9 a.m.

Questions: Is an application of a mandatory minimum sentence to a juvenile considered to be cruel and unusual punishment even if the district considered constitutional juvenile sentencing-factors?

Willard Chaiden Miller appeals his sentence to life in prison with the possibility of parole after serving a mandatory minimum of 35 years prison. Miller pleaded guilty to first degree murder in Jefferson County District Court for his role in the killing of Fairfield High School Spanish teacher Nohema Graber when he was age 16. Miller raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Miller, a juvenile offender, to a 35-year minimum prison term when it did not start from a presumption against a mandatory minimum, and the court abused its discretion by improperly applying the constitutional juvenile sentencing-factors. Second, Miller argues a mandatory minimum sentence imposed against a juvenile offender amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Iowa Constitution if the judge does not consider expert testimony related to the defendant’s psychological traits before ordering a mandatory prison term. Finally, Miller argues juvenile mandatory minimum sentences, even if coupled with individualized sentencing, should be deemed unconstitutional under Article I, Section 17 of the Iowa Constitution, which bars cruel and unusual punishment.

 

S.K. v. Obstetric & Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville P.C., Mercy Hospital Iowa City and Jill Christine Goodman

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 11, 9 a.m.

Question: Do errors in a medical malpractice trial that resulted in a nearly $100 million verdict warrant a new trial?

Obstetric & Gynecologic Associates of Iowa City and Coralville P.C., Mercy Hospital Iowa City, and Jill Christine Goodman appeal from a Johnson County jury verdict of more than $97 million in a medical malpractice suit for a birth injury that the plaintiff’s experts testified would leave S.K. permanently cognitively, and physically disabled needing custodial care the rest of his life. The defendants-appellants make four primary arguments on appeal: (1) The district court erred in submitting specifications of negligence without evidentiary support and based on the language used in the instructions submitted to the jury; (2) the district court erroneously allowed the plaintiff to introduce into evidence the package insert that came with the Mityvac vacuum used to deliver S.K.; (3) the district court erred in denying a mistrial based upon misconduct by plaintiff’s counsel throughout trial; (4) the nearly $100 million damages award is clearly excessive. The defendants-appellants ask the Supreme Court to remand the case for a new trial.

 

State v. Schooley

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 11, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was a father’s slapping and spanking of his 9-year-old daughter “unreasonable force, torture or cruelty”?

Reuben Schooley appeals his conviction by an Emmet County jury of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury and five-year prison sentence for using unreasonable force against his daughter, who was just under age 10 at the time. Schooley argues his actions when he yanked his daughter’s shirt, slapped her on the head, and spanked her on her bottom were within his parental rights to discipline his daughter and did not rise to the level of “unreasonable force, torture or cruelty” as required to support his conviction Iowa Code § 726.6(1)(b). Schooley also argues the district court improperly considered the guardian ad litem’s sentencing statement. A guardian ad litem is authorized to “advocate for the protection of the child” at trial under Iowa Code section 915.37, but he argues the Code does not authorize a guardian ad litem to provide a sentencing recommendation or a victim impact statement on behalf of the child.

 

State v. Flynn

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 11, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a district court wrongly suppress results of a chemical breath test in an OWI case even though the driver consented to the test?

The State appeals a Dubuque County District Court ruling granting Jeffrey Flynn’s motion to suppress a chemical breath test at his trial on charge of operating while intoxicated. Flynn argues a Dubuque County Sheriff’s deputy violated Iowa Code section 321J.6(1) by failing to make a written request for a chemical test sample and section 321J.8 by failing to read the implied consent advisory. The State argues the district court was incorrect: The deputy did not invoke implied consent but instead received Flynn’s consent to give a breath sample. Instead of invoking implied consent, where officers must inform drivers of the consequences of refusing, officers may choose to ask for actual consent to a chemical test without any penalty for refusal.

 

State v. Berg

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 11, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was a speedy indictment violation cured when the State filed a different charge for the same offense?

Sarah Rae Berg seeks further review of a Jan. 24 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming her conviction in Black Hawk County District Court for unauthorized use of a credit card. Berg was initially charged with fourth-degree theft for stealing and using gift cards. After Berg moved to dismiss the charge for lack of speedy indictment, the State filed a new trial information charging her with unauthorized use of a credit card. Berg argued the two charges are substantially the same for purposes of a speedy indictment. The Court of Appeals disagreed, saying theft and unauthorized use of a credit card are different offenses found in separate chapters of the Iowa Code. In her application for further review, Berg argues the Court of Appeals erred because the State relied on the same evidence to sustain the two charges.

 

Norris v. Paulsen and the City of Des Moines

Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 11 without oral argument.

Question: Did the Iowa Court of Appeals correctly dismiss a plaintiff’s damages claim under the Iowa Constitution based on the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2023 decision holding there is no stand-alone right to sue for damages under the Iowa Constitution?

Bryan Norris seeks further review of a June 5 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming in part and reversing in part the Polk County District Court’s denial of the City of Des Moines’ motion for summary judgment on Norris’ suit against Des Moines Police Officer Trudy Paulson and the City of Des Moines for unreasonable seizure. Officer Paulson shot and wounded Norris during a confrontation at a Des Moines homeless camp. Norris sued her and the city, seeking money damages for violation of his rights under the Iowa Constitution and for common law assault. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ summary judgment motion on the constitutional claim, citing the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Burnett v. Smith, which held there is no stand-alone right to sue for damages under the Iowa Constitution, which was decided after the district court ruled in this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court on the assault claim, saying that assuming without deciding that Officer Paulson was making a lawful arrest, the city failed to show there was no genuine issue of material fact on the officer’s claim of justification of the use of force. In his application for further review, Norris argues the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his claims for unreasonable seizure under the Iowa Constitution because the legal issues implicated by the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Burnett v. Smith were never raised or ruled upon by the district court.

 

In re: N.S.

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 12, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a district court err in denying appellant’s application for restoration of his right to bear arms he lost due to his civil commitment as a juvenile?

N.S. appeals the Pottawattamie District Court’s denial of his request for relief from disabilities under Iowa Code section 724.31 regarding persons subject to firearm disabilities due to mental health commitments or adjudications. N.S. lost his firearm rights after a civil commitment when he was a juvenile in 2006 based on his parents’ allegations that he had been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and was not taking his medication but instead was using alcohol and illegal drugs. Since his commitment N.S., age 32 at the time of this appeal, earned a GED and post-secondary credits, is married with three children, has been employed for the past six years, and has no significant criminal history. The district court found that the information provided by N.S. was insufficient for the court to determine that he was not likely to act dangerously in the future. On appeal, N.S. argues the district court’s analysis is inconsistent with a 2022 amendment to the Iowa Constitution requiring that any restrictions on an individual’s right to bear arms be analyzed with strict scrutiny.

 

Rivas v. Brownell and Wessel

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 12, 9 a.m.

Question: Were the Iowa Supreme Court’s Covid-related 2020 orders extending statutes of limitation an unconstitutional separation of powers violation?

Marleny Rivas appeals from the Polk County District Court’s summary judgment dismissal of her suit against Derek Brownell and Lindsey Wessel for injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The district court held Rivas’ 2020 suit was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations and that the extended deadline under the Iowa Supreme Court’s supervisory orders tolling the statutes of limitation due to the Covid 19 outbreak were an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers. Rivas argues the district court erred in that holding. The Iowa Supreme Court addressed this issue in Dickey v. Hoff (2022) but the lower court ruling was affirmed by operation of law because the Supreme Court was evenly divided in that case with one justice not participating. Rivas states that affirmation is “of no further force or authority,” citing Iowa Code section 602.4107. [Read our post on the Dickey decision here.] Rivas urges the Supreme Court to reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.

 

Estate of Larry Joe McVay v. Grinnell Regional Medical Center, et al.

 Will be submitted to the Court without oral argument Sept. 12.

Question: Were the Iowa Supreme Court’s Covid-related 2020 orders extending statutes of limitation an unconstitutional separation of powers violation?

Grinnell Regional Medical Center, et al., appeal the Poweshiek County District Court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment in the medical malpractice action brought by the Estate of Larry Joe McVay, holding that the tolling provision of the Iowa Supreme Court’s Covid-19 supervisory orders were constitutional and allowed the plaintiffs to proceed after the statute of limitations deadline established by the Legislature. The Grinnell Regional Medical Center appellants argue the district court erred in denying summary judgment because the Iowa Supreme Court does not have emergency rulemaking powers and inherent common law powers to amend the statute of limitations, and the Legislature’s inaction in the face of a global pandemic indicates its intent for the statute of limitations to remain in force. They urge the Court to reverse the district court and dismiss the plaintiffs’ suit against them.

 

State v. Brown

Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 12, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Should the Iowa Supreme Court overturn its 2010 ruling imposing a de novo standard of review for appeals regarding district court determinations about a defendant’s competency to stand trial?

The State seeks further review of a March 27 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing the Wright County District Court’s holding that Lukouxs Brown was competent to stand trial on a charge of first-degree murder. In seeking further review, the State argues that because the Court of Appeals was bound by the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in State v. Lyman, the Court of Appeals was forced to consider the Brown appeal de novo, meaning it reweighed the evidence “from a cold record” and substituted its own findings for those from the vantage point of the district court. The State argues that the Supreme Court should impose a deferential substantial-evidence standard of review, for correction of errors law. The State urges the Court to overrule Lyman, vacate the Court of Appeals ruling and affirm the district court’s competency finding.

 

State v. Harris

Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 12 without oral argument.

Question: Did a district court err in denying a defendant’s motion to dismiss charges against him because the State failed to file a trial information before the speedy-indictment deadline?

Eric Harris appeals the Johnson County District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss charges of child endangerment, reckless use of fire, and harassment, arguing the State filed the trial information 46 days after taking him into custody, and not within 45 days as required by the speedy indictment rule. Harris argues the district court erred in determining that the speedy-indictment clock runs from the date of the initial appearance, not the date of physical custody. Harris cites the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in State v. Williams, which held that when an arrest is completed by initial appearance, the clock runs from the date of physical custody, not the date of initial appearance.

 

In the Interest of J.V., Minor Child

Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 12 without oral argument.

Question: Should a mother’s parental rights be terminated based on the best interests of the child?

The mother of a child removed from her custody shortly after his birth in 2017 while she was incarcerated, appeals a divided March 27 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing the Polk County District Court’s denial of the child’s guardians’ petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Two members of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel held that the guardians proved abandonment by clear and convincing evidence as provided in section 600A.8(3)(b) based on evidence the mother showed little affirmative parenting. And, because the mother has shown little interest in connecting with the child, termination is in the best interests of the child. One member of the panel dissented, saying that while this is not an easy case and the guardians nurtured and welcomed the boy into their family, treating him as their son, they have not met their burden under the statute to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the mother “has abandoned the child.”

 

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25