Miscellaneous

Two new opinions today:

State v. Shipley - Defendant who’s license is suspended for OWI test failure claimed that the admission of a certified abstract of his operational record without any foundational testimony violated a number of statutes and rules, not to mention the Confrontational Clause. Justice Appel, as usual, gives us a nice in-depth discussion of … zzzzzzzzzzzz … huh? Oh, sorry. A nod, though, to Justice Appel for using the word “curtsied” in his opinion (see p. 17). The bottom line is that the State offering a certified abstract of a defendant’s operation record without any foundational testimony doesn’t violate any statue or the Confrontation Clause. So, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and affirmed the District Court judgment.

In the Interest of K.B. - Another case on further review from the Court of Appeals. This one involves a change in custody ordered by the Juvenlie Court at a review hearing during a CINA proceeding. The legal guardian of the child lost her representation to a judicial appointment and was never appointed a new attorney. She received the DHS report at the time of the hearing and did not consent to the change. Nonetheless, the Court didn’t hold any evidentiary hearings and changed custody. The Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals (Guardians statement at the hearing was, ”I don’t agree, and I think K.B.’s been through  enough, and she needs to stay home with me”. Now that’s consent.) and reversing the District Court. They also added instructions to the District Court: “Before proceeding further, the juvenile court  should ensure that E.A.B.’s right to counsel, as set forth in section 232.89, is not violated.” Ouch. I don’t think I’d want that reprimand from the Supreme Court of Iowa, if I was a judge.

That’s all the fun for today.