State v. Finders (2008)

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

It strikes us as analogous to the interpretation of the grandfather provision urged by the defendant in State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Iowa 2008).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008). 2The location of the call center that answers the 1-800 number calls was not provided in the trial information or minutes.

“When we interpret a criminal statute, our goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Conley, 222 N.W.2d 501, 502 (Iowa 1974)).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008) (citation omitted); see also State v. Mathias, 936 N.W.2d 222 , 230 (Iowa 2019). “[S]ection 719.8 prohibits the introduction of a controlled substance into a detention facility because the introduction of contraband threatens the security and disrupts the balance of Iowa’s penal institutions.” Caquelin, 702 N.W.2d at 513 .

And here, 1“The purpose of a grandfather provision for property owners is to ‘avoid the harsh effect of the retroactive application’ of a new rule of law.” Winger v. CM Holdings, L.L.C., 881 N.W.2d 433, 455 (Iowa 2016) (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008)).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

If the legislature has not provided a definition, we may refer “to prior decisions of this court and others, similar statutes, dictionary definitions, and common usage.” Good, 924 N.W.2d at 860 (quoting State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 179 (Iowa 2013)). “[O]ur goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124 , 136 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

If the legislature has not provided a definition, we may refer “to prior decisions of this court and others, similar statutes, dictionary definitions, and common usage.” Good, 924 N.W.2d at 860 (quoting State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 179 (Iowa 2013)). “[O]ur goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124 , 136 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

If the legislature has not provided a definition, we may refer “to prior decisions of this court and others, similar statutes, dictionary definitions, and common usage.” Good, 924 N.W.2d at 860 (quoting State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 179 (Iowa 2013)). “[O]ur goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124 , 136 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

We still must interpret criminal statutes “reasonably and in such a way as to not defeat their plain purpose.” Coleman, 907 N.W.2d at 136 (quoting State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 146 (Iowa 2013)). “[O]ur goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

We still must interpret criminal statutes “reasonably and in such a way as to not defeat their plain purpose.” Coleman, 907 N.W.2d at 136 (quoting State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 146 (Iowa 2013)). “[O]ur goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

Our goal in interpreting criminal statutes “is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.” Id. (quoting State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008)).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

He argued that he was exempt from those requirements because a grandfather provision in the law applied if “[t]he person has established a residence prior to July 1, 2002.” Id. at 548 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Code § 692A.2A(4)(c) (2005), repealed by 2009 Iowa Acts ch. 119, § 31).

State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

“When we interpret a criminal statute, our goal ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Conley, 222 N.W.2d 501, 502 (Iowa 1974)).

Moreover, “[i]f a criminal statute is ambiguous we resolve any doubt in favor of the accused.” State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

Our goal in interpreting criminal statutes “ ‘is to ascertain legislative intent in order, if possible, to give it effect.’ ” State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Conley, 222 N.W.2d 501, 502 (Iowa 1974)). “ “We consider the object sought to be accomplished and the evil sought to be remedied, and seek a reasonable interpretation that will best effect the legislative purpose and avoid absurd results.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Byers, 456 N.W.2d 917…

Cf. State v. Bouse, 150 S.W.3d 326, 331 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (holding Missouri statute defining sexual misconduct involving a child did not limit the means or mode of exposure and concluding “expose” included an exposure on the Internet as well as in a public park), with Swire v. State, 997 S.W.2d 370 , 373–74 (Tex. Ct. App. 1999) (Burgess, J., dissenting) (asserting under Texas statute, “indecent exposure requires that a defendant actually expose himself to another individua…

We do not reach this issue, which is now pending before the California Supreme Court. ( In re J. ( E. ), S156933.) [11] Also applying the Mendoza-Martinez factors, the Alaska Supreme Court recently held the same sex offender registration laws violated the state constitution's ex post facto clause. ( Doe v. State (Alaska 2008) 189 P.3d 999, 1018-1019 ( Doe ).) [12] At oral argument, the Attorney General conceded the usefulness and prevalence of the Mendoza-Martinez factors fo…

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008) (stating statute was not a “model of clarity” yet was not ambiguous, and even if it were ambiguous, obvious public policy underlying legislative intent would control); see also Kahan, 1994 Sup.Ct.

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008) (“A statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood in two or more possible ways.” (cleaned up)).

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008).

See Gunfire on School Grounds in the United States, Everytown for Gun Safety, https://everytownresearch.org/gunfire-in- school/12409/#ns (follow “2019” hyperlink; then click on dots on interactive map for information on each school shooting incident) (last visited Sept. 25, 2019) (providing interactive map identifying the location of school shootings in the United States in 2019, twenty-three of which occurred outside the traditional classroom setting, including in school pa…

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008) (discussing the grandfather provision in the sex offender residency restriction law).

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008) (discussing the grandfather provision in the sex offender residency restriction law).

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008) (discussing the grandfather provision in the sex offender residency restriction law).

See State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 2008) (noting purpose of sex offender registry “is to reduce the high risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders”).