right to assert error in Iowa

2025Even Taggart—cited by the majority—states: “Failure to timely object to an instruction . . . waives the right to assert error on appeal, . . . .” 430 N.W.2d at 425 (emphasis added).

2020See State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) (“Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also ‘the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.’” (internal citation omitted)). .

2024The rule does not apply unless the defendant was advised “during the plea proceedings, as required by rule 2.8(2)(d), that challenges to the plea must be made in a motion in arrest of judgment and that the failure to challenge the plea by filing the motion within the time provided prior to sentencing precludes a right to assert the challenge on appeal.” State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680 (Iowa 2016) (quoting State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004)).

2024In any event, we now reaffirm that a proper advisory must advise the defendant that “the failure to challenge the plea by filing the motion within the time provided prior to sentencing precludes a right to assert the challenge on appeal.” Fisher, 877 N.W.2d at 680 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Meron, 675 N.W.2d at 540 ).

2025See id. (stating “a proper advisory must advise the defendant that ‘the failure to challenge the plea by filing the motion within the time provided prior to sentencing precludes a right to assert the challenge on appeal’” (quoting State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680 (Iowa 2016))).4 And as in Hightower, Divine did not request nor receive immediate sentencing.5 In any 4 See also State v. Jennings, No. 24-0583, 2025 WL 52816 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2025) (observing a proper advisory must “expressly mention the effect on appeal of not filing a motion in arrest of judgment”). 5 But see Stat

2025But appellate review is barred if the defendant was advised “during the plea proceedings, as required by [Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure] 2.8(2)(d), that challenges to the plea must be made in a motion in arrest of judgment and that the failure to challenge the plea by filing the motion within the time provided prior to sentencing precludes a right to assert the challenge on appeal.” Id. (quoting State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680 (Iowa 2016)).

2016See State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Iowa 1995) (“Failure to properly object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also allows the instruction, right or wrong, to become the law of the case.”).

2016See State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Iowa 1995) (“Failure to properly object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also allows the instruction, right or wrong, to become the law of the case.”).

2006As such, Naughton argues, it became the “law of the case.” State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) (“Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also ‘the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.’ ” (quoting Froman v. Perrin, 213 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1973))).

2006As such, Naughton argues, it became the “law of the case.” State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) (“Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also ‘the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.’ ” (quoting Froman v. Perrin, 213 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1973))).

2024“We may not consider an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal, ‘even if it is of constitutional dimension.’” State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994) (quoting Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1985)); see State v. Walker, 236 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Iowa 1975) (“Defendants waived the right to assert error here by failing to raise their alleged speedy trial right below.”). [I]t is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.

2014See State v. Walker, 236 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Iowa 1975) (“Defendants waived the right to assert error here by failing to raise their alleged speedy trial right below.”).

2015See State v. Murray, 796 N.W.2d 907, 910 (Iowa 2011) (noting lesser included offense instruction became law of the case when defendant failed to preserve error by objecting to instruction); State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) (“Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)).

2015See State v. Murray, 796 N.W.2d 907, 910 (Iowa 2011) (noting lesser included offense instruction became law of the case when defendant failed to preserve error by objecting to instruction); State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa 1988) (“Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)).

2025Like the majority, the State ignores the principle from State v. Rimmer and Liggins that territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived. 877 N.W.2d 652, 663 (Iowa 2016); see 524 N.W.2d at 185 (contrasting territorial jurisdiction and venue).

2025With waiver off the table, the failure to instruct the jury on territorial jurisdiction did not free the State from proving that element under the law- of-the-case doctrine.9 See Liggins, 524 N.W.2d at 185 .

2025In addressing only the jury instruction, the majority anchors its analysis to the concept known as “law of the case.” Under that concept, when parties fail to object to a jury instruction at trial, they waive the right to assert error on appeal, and the instruction—right or wrong—becomes the law of the case.7 State v. 1982) (“[T]he question of territorial jurisdiction is so basic that it can be raised at any stage before the trial court or any appellate court, or even collaterally in subsequent and separate proceedings.”); State v. Dudley, 614 S.E.2d 623, 626 (S.C. 2005) (rejecting notion that

2025Like the majority, the State ignores the principle from State v. Rimmer and Liggins that territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived. 877 N.W.2d 652, 663 (Iowa 2016); see 524 N.W.2d at 185 (contrasting territorial jurisdiction and venue).

2024“We may not consider an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal, ‘even if it is of constitutional dimension.’” State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994) (quoting Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1985)); see State v. Walker, 236 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Iowa 1975) (“Defendants waived the right to assert error here by failing to raise their alleged speedy trial right below.”). [I]t is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.

2024“We may not consider an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal, ‘even if it is of constitutional dimension.’” State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994) (quoting Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1985)); see State v. Walker, 236 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Iowa 1975) (“Defendants waived the right to assert error here by failing to raise their alleged speedy trial right below.”). [I]t is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.

1988See also Champlin v. Walker, 249 N.W.2d 839, 840 (Iowa 1977); Business Ventures, Inc. v. Iowa City, 234 N.W.2d 376, 384 (Iowa 1975); Allbee & Kincaid, Error Preservation in Civil Litigation: A Primer for the Iowa Practitioner, 35 Drake L.Rev. 1, 23 (1985-86).

1988See also Champlin v. Walker, 249 N.W.2d 839, 840 (Iowa 1977); Business Ventures, Inc. v. Iowa City, 234 N.W.2d 376, 384 (Iowa 1975); Allbee & Kincaid, Error Preservation in Civil Litigation: A Primer for the Iowa Practitioner, 35 Drake L.Rev. 1, 23 (1985-86).

1988Failure to timely object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, Porter v. Iowa Power and Light Co., 217 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 1974), but also “the instruction, right or wrong, becomes the law of the case.” Froman v. Perrin, 213 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1973).

1981Under that rule a defendant is permitted to directly appeal his conviction based on a guilty plea and avoid both the rule set forth in State v. Reaves, 254 N.W.2d 488, 493 (Iowa 1977) and the amended Iowa R.Crim.P. 23(3)(a), (b), § 813.2, The Code 1979, which require that a challenge to a guilty plea be initially raised by a motion in arrest of judgment in order to- perfect the right to assert such challenge on appeal.

1981State v. Fluhr, 287 N.W.2d 857, 860 (Iowa 1980).