Miscellaneous

Two new opinions today. The first is State v. Smith (they come up with the most unique case names). Anyway, the State appealed from an order granting Mr. Smith a new trial. Mr.  Smith pled guilty and waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment. The Court sentenced him, but failed to inform him of or sentence him to the mandatory lifetime supervision required as a result of his plea to a charge of sexual abuse as an habitual offender. Before resentencing, Mr. Smith filed a motion in arrest of judgment and application to withdraw his plea. The Court granted a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the new trial grant, saying that this is a matter for post-conviction relief. First, the motion in arrest of judgment was not timely, second, Mr. Smith clearly waived his right to file the motion. So, Mr. Smith goes to jail.

The second case is State v. Helmers. This is another appeal by the State. They’re appealing the bifurcation of Mr. Helmers’ stalking trial. The District Court granted Mr. Helmers’ motion to bifurcate the issues of stalking and the existence of a no-contact order because the probative value of the no-contact order is substantially outweighed by the prejudice it would create. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded saying that the no-contact order was the best evidence the State had of the complaining witness’ displeasure with Mr. Helmers’ actions. According to the Supreme Court, any prejudiced could be “lessoned” (apparently law clerks have a hard time spelling) by an instruction to the jury on the limited use for which the evidence was available. The Court chose not to decide the general issue of whether or not bifurcation of different elements of a crime is allowed under the rules.

Helmers also appealed the District Court’s order posponing ruling on his motion in limine concerning evidence of prior bad acts. The Supreme Court said that, since Mr. Helmers didn’t raise any specific instances of bad acts, only a blanket motion covering all bad acts, the District Court couldn’t really evaluate the evidence. I think Mr. Helmers is probably not “Glee”ful about this opinion.