 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Polson, No. 6-153 / 05-0593,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's verdict convicting defendant of attempted burglary was supported by substantial evidence and district court did not err in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, as defendant made threats against victim's sons, he was armed with knife, he stabbed screen door and broke glass, and he admitted his anger with victim and her sons.
|
|||||
| State v. Reader, No. 6-222 / 05-0451,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain a second-degree robbery conviction, under Iowa Code § 711.1, where defendant approached the victim, grabbed her ATM card, money, and receipt from her hands, and the physical contact between the two was caused by defendant's overt act of forcibly taking the victim's possessions.
|
|||||
| State v. Sahir, No. 5-940 / 04-2042,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's counsel was ineffective for not objecting to court's consideration of the existence of protective orders as sentencing enhancements to defendant's stalking conviction without presenting them to the jury, thus violating defendant's Fifth Amendment right to due process, Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, and Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.19(9).
|
|||||
| State v. Sumba, No. 6-219 / 05-0271,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In trial for criminal mischief, evidence was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, pursuant to Iowa Code § 716.6, because there was no evidence to support a claim that the criminal mischief resulted in damage in excess of $ 200.
|
|||||
| State v. Thomas, No. 6-061 / 05-0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for willful serious injury under Iowa Code § 708.4(1) because his own witnesses placed him at a bar near the stabbing victim's home, he returned to the bar and stated that he participated in assault, and victim identified defendant and the co-conspirator within minutes of the attack at the bar.
|
|||||
| State v. Vignaroli, No. 6-240 / 05-1071,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an operating while intoxicated case, defendant's sentence was vacated under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d) and the case was remanded for resentencing, because the district court failed to give any reasons for the sentence it imposed.
|
|||||
| Tunstall v. State, No. 6-135 / 05-0858,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, No. 6-111 / 05-1259,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not preserve error on claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of his prior bad acts against women other than ex-girlfriend and did not file motion to amend or enlarge, Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(2). Defense counsel, as trial strategy, chose not to introduce certain letters, which was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United Coop. Ass'n v. Kaeser, No. 5-968 / 05-0747,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, April 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not err in reducing damages of an association, an agricultural cooperative, from $ 31,507.08 plus 18 percent interest to $ 1594.70 as association did not carry its burden of proof as a matter of law due to its failure to consider its accounting entry errors, which resulted in compounded interest on amounts admittedly not owed.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
