Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Deonte WB Ellisongreen2 sentences2026In State v. Ellison, 985 N.W.2d 473, 480 (Iowa 2023), we noted that the stand-your-ground instruction used the statutory term “illegal activity,” but the next instruction specified an illegal activity: With regard to element no. 3 of the previous two instructions, it is illegal for a person to go armed with any dangerous weapon with the intent to use that weapon against another person without justification. 2026In State v. Ellison, 985 N.W.2d 473 , 480 (Iowa 2023), we noted that the stand-your-ground instruction used the statutory term “illegal activity,” but the next instruction specified an illegal activity: With regard to element no. 3 of the previous two instructions, it is illegal for a person to go armed with any dangerous weapon with the intent to use that weapon against another person without justification. | 1 | 2 |
State of Iowa v. Lasondra A. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026Later, in State v. Johnson, 7 N.W.3d 504, 509 (Iowa 2024), another stand-your-ground case, we observed that “the district court . . . astutely saw for itself the benefit of specifying the underlying ‘illegal activity’ in the stand-your- ground instruction.” 12 The crimes of burglary and attempted burglary require “the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft.” Iowa Code §§ 713.1–.2. 2026Later, in State v. Johnson, 7 N.W.3d 504 , 509 (Iowa 2024), another stand-your-ground case, we observed that “the district court . . . astutely saw for itself the benefit of specifying the underlying ‘illegal activity’ in the stand-your- ground instruction.” 12 The crimes of burglary and attempted burglary require “the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft.” Iowa Code §§ 713 .1–.2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maringreen1 sentence2023The district court is under no requirement “to give any particular form of an instruction; rather, the court must merely give instructions that fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case.” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 838 (Iowa 2010), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016). 10 Although Ellison claims not to have raised a stand-your-ground defense, he never conceded that he was engaged in “illegal activity” when he shot Smothers. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Miguel Angel Lorenzo Baltazargreen2 sentences2023Ellison urges that the stand-your-ground defense isn’t pertinent to every case in which a claim of justification arises and that the court’s instruction, framed as it was, caused the jury to reject his defense merely because he couldn’t establish the inapplicable elements of the stand-your-ground exception. 8 In State v. Lorenzo Baltazar, we observed that after the 2017 amendments, a person lawfully present and not engaged in illegal activity had no duty to retreat before using force. 935 N.W.2d at 870. 2023Ellison urges that the stand-your-ground defense isn’t pertinent to every case in which a claim of justification arises and that the court’s instruction, framed as it was, caused the jury to reject his defense merely because he couldn’t establish the inapplicable elements of the stand-your-ground exception. 8 In State v. Lorenzo Baltazar, we observed that after the 2017 amendments, a person lawfully present and not engaged in illegal activity had no duty to retreat before using force. 935 N.W.2d at 870. | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Levi Gibbs III
green
2 sentences2024“The [section 704.2B] reporting requirement—as carried forward in Instruction No. 36—applies to any assertion of the justification defense in a homicide case.” State v. Gibbs, 941 N.W.2d 888 , 900 (Iowa 2020). 8 of the uniform jury instructions.” State v. Booth-Harris, 942 N.W.2d 562 , 580 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). 2024Standard of Review “Challenges to jury instructions are reviewed for correction of errors at law.” State v. Gibbs, 941 N.W.2d 888 , 894 (Iowa 2020). “[W]e are slow to disapprove 1 Even if Weiner had raised this argument on appeal, the instruction would not be limited to use in a stand-your-ground defense. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State of Iowa v. Earl Booth-Harris
green
1 sentence2024“The [section 704.2B] reporting requirement—as carried forward in Instruction No. 36—applies to any assertion of the justification defense in a homicide case.” State v. Gibbs, 941 N.W.2d 888 , 900 (Iowa 2020). 8 of the uniform jury instructions.” State v. Booth-Harris, 942 N.W.2d 562 , 580 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brenda J. Alcala v. Marriott International, Inc. and Courtyard Management Corporation D/B/A Quad Cities Courtyard by Marriott
green
1 sentence2023The district court is under no requirement “to give any particular form of an instruction; rather, the court must merely give instructions that fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case.” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 838 (Iowa 2010), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016). 10 Although Ellison claims not to have raised a stand-your-ground defense, he never conceded that he was engaged in “illegal activity” when he shot Smothers. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
McNEELY v. STATE
green
1 sentence2020McNeely v. State, 422 P.3d 1272 , 1275-76 (Okla. Crim. App. 2018). [W]e find that, by using the words “immune from criminal prosecution,” the legislature intended to create a true immunity, and not simply an affirmative defense. . . . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.