The latest opinions from the Iowa Court of Appeals are up. A couple of cases caught my eye:



STATE V. MCMURRIN re-enforces the absolute necessity for a prosecutor to be meticulous in doing up a trial information. Anything less demands an acquittal.



The Facts

The State charged Douglas McMurrin with failure to register as a sex offender. Iowa Code §§ 692A.3(2), 692A.7(1) (2001). McMurrin agreed to a bench trial on the minutes of testimony. The record also included a single exhibit proffered by the State. After considering this evidence, the district court found McMurrin guilty of the offense and imposed sentence. However, the exhibit offered by the State - an April 1, 1999 registration record establishing that McMurrin registered as a sex offender with the Buchanan County Sheriff on July 21, 1995, November 21, 1996, and April 1, 1999 - provided no proof of his underlying sex offense or the dates of his release from incarceration.



The Law

The State had charged McMurrin with a violation of Chapter 692A of the Iowa Code for failure to register. The chapter reads:



692A.7 Failure to comply -- penalty.

1. A person required to register under this chapter who violates any requirements specified under sections 692A.2, 692A.3, and 692A.4 commits an aggravated misdemeanor for a first offense and a class "D" felony for a second or subsequent offense. A person required to register under this chapter who violates any requirements specified under section 692A.3A commits a serious misdemeanor for a first offense and a class "D" felony for a second or subsequent offense. However, a person required to register under this chapter who violates any of the requirements specified under section 692A.2, 692A.3, 692A.3A, or 692A.4 and who commits a criminal offense against a minor, sexual exploitation, an other relevant offense, or a sexually violent offense is guilty of a class "C" felony. . .



In order to prove up that charge, the State needed to show that McMurrin was "a person required to register under this chapter". Iowa law defines that in 692A.2:



692A.2 Persons required to register.:



1. A person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor, an aggravated offense, sexual exploitation, an other relevant offense, or a sexually violent offense in this state or in another state, or in a federal, military, tribal, or foreign court, or a person required to register in another state under the state's sex offender registry, shall register as provided in this chapter. A person required to register under this chapter shall, upon a first conviction, register for a period of ten years commencing as follows:

a. From the date of placement on probation.

b. From the date of release on parole or work release.

c. From the date of release as a juvenile from foster care or residential treatment.

d. From the date of any other release from custody.



Obligatory Blog Commentary

The Court couldn't find the evidence it needed to support

that McMurrin was required to register by just looking at the fact he'd registered three times before. So despite the fact that the Iowa Courts Online website indicates that McMurrin pled guilty to indecent contact with a child in 1996 in FECR066188, and to lascivious acts with a child in 1993 in FECR04765, and is therefore a person who would be required to register under Iowa law, he walks because the State failed to dot the 'i' and cross the 't'. The appellate court had no choice but to release him. Which is how it should be - when you're dealing with people's freedom, you have to play utterly by the rules. Though I wonder how much of his 180 sentence on the new charge he'd already served. And if he's registered since.



MUNZ V. PENINSULA GAMING demonstrates that Iowa is not the highest priority state for tort reform.



The Facts

"On or about December 31, 2001, John Winkers and Linda Munz drove to the Diamond Jo Casino. They parked in a parking lot owned by the City of Dubuque. At this same time, Jeffrey Howell, a parking valet for the casino, noticed a man had fallen out of his wheelchair in the parking lot.[1] Howell attempted to lift the man, who weighed about 200 pounds, but could not do so. Howell asked Winkers and Munz, who were walking by at this time, to help him, and they agreed. After several attempts, Howell and Winkers were able to lift the man, while Munz held the wheelchair steady. Winkers and Munz then proceeded into the casino, where they spent several hours gambling.



On July 15, 2002, Winkers and Munz filed suit against Peninsula Gaming Company, doing business as Diamond Jo Casino, alleging they were both injured while helping the man into his wheelchair. They claimed the casino was negligent in (1) failing to provide safe premises; (2) failing to properly train employees on proper procedures when dealing with a fallen or intoxicated patron; (3) failing to follow proper procedure in asking plaintiffs for assistance; and (4) failing to report the incident in a timely fashion. They also raised claims based on theories of respondeat superior and dram shop liability."



The Court's Response

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's dismissal of the claim on summary judgment. Summary judgment is the tool to get rid of a case when there are no genuine issues of fact and a judgment must be rendered for one party as a matter of law. In other words, even if the plaintiff is right about the facts they have no case and they must lose. In upholding the summary judgment, the Court quoted the original dismissal ruling:



"In addition to the absence of a relationship that will support a duty, public policy doesn’t favor the plaintiffs. The only act of Mr. Howell which the plaintiffs can identify as being blameworthy is the act of asking them to assist him in helping the fallen man. Iowa has not yet reached the point where the act of asking others to help the less fortunate is actionable."



Obligatory Blog Commentary

Yeah, what they said.



It's suits like this that make me want to use a Curly-from-the-Three-Stooges accent: "What noirve!" Setting Winker aside, what injury could Munz have possibly claimed from simply holding the freaking wheelchair? I probably don't want to know.



I hope they won at the tables, because I could've told them that rolling the dice with our courts simply doesn't fly unless you've got a decent cause. That's why we don't have some of the sky-high insurance premiums found in suit-happy states. I'm going to send the link to Overlawyered.