burden defense in Iowa

2023State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 556 (Iowa 2010) (“It is improper for the State to shift the burden to the defense by suggesting the defense could have called additional witnesses.”).

2023The Hanes court found “it was not proper for the State to attempt to shift the burden to the defense to call the witnesses or to suggest the jury could infer from the defense’s failure to call the witnesses that they would not have said anything helpful to the defense.” 790 N.W.2d at 557 .

2021See Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc. 773 N.W.2d 829, 832 (Iowa 2009) (“[T]he party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity to give fee applicants notice, the reasonableness of the requested fee.” (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 882 (N.D.

2009The applicant for attorney fees bears the burden “to prove both that the services were reasonably necessary and that the charges were reasonable in amount.” Landals, 454 N.W.2d at 897 . “[T]o ensure that all necessary data is before the court, attorneys are generally required to submit detailed affidavits which itemize their fee claims.” Grunin v. Int’l 5 House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 , 127 (8th Cir. 1975); accord Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889, 896 (Iowa 1996). “[T]he party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity t

2026See Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc., 773 N.W.2d 829, 832 (Iowa 2009) (“The party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity to give fee applicants notice, the reasonableness of the requested fee.” (cleaned up)).

2021See Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc. 773 N.W.2d 829, 832 (Iowa 2009) (“[T]he party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity to give fee applicants notice, the reasonableness of the requested fee.” (per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting Sherman v. Kasotakis, 314 F. Supp. 2d 843, 882 (N.D.

2009The applicant for attorney fees bears the burden “to prove both that the services were reasonably necessary and that the charges were reasonable in amount.” Landals, 454 N.W.2d at 897 . “[T]o ensure that all necessary data is before the court, attorneys are generally required to submit detailed affidavits which itemize their fee claims.” Grunin v. Int’l House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 , 127 (8th Cir.1975); accord Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889, 896 (Iowa 1996). “[T]he party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity to g

2009The applicant for attorney fees bears the burden “to prove both that the services were reasonably necessary and that the charges were reasonable in amount.” Landals, 454 N.W.2d at 897 . “[T]o ensure that all necessary data is before the court, attorneys are generally required to submit detailed affidavits which itemize their fee claims.” Grunin v. Int’l 5 House of Pancakes, 513 F.2d 114 , 127 (8th Cir. 1975); accord Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889, 896 (Iowa 1996). “[T]he party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity t

2023Assuming the prosecutor’s conduct was objectionable, to be a basis for mistrial the conduct must be “so prejudicial that its effect upon the jury could not be erased by the trial court’s admonition.” State v. Christensen, 929 N.W.2d 646, 659 (Iowa 2019).

2020Cf. State v. Christensen, 929 N.W.2d 646 , 659–60 (Iowa 2019) (finding the State crossed the lines established by Hanes when it elicited testimony that the physical evidence was available for testing by others); Hanes, 790 N.W.2d at 556 (holding the State bears the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution and that it was improper for the State to attempt to shift the burden to the defense by suggesting the defendant could have called additional witnesses).

2019Further, the “federal constitution prohibits a 18 prosecutor from commenting on a defendant’s failure to testify in his or her own behalf.” State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554, 562 (Iowa 1986).

2017A prosecutor’s arguments focusing on lack of evidence or failure to produce witnesses raise concerns because the law “places the burden to produce evidence on the State, not the defendant.” Id. at 563 ; see also State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 556 (Iowa 2010) (“It is improper for the State to shift the burden to the defense by suggesting the defense could have called additional witnesses.”).

2024Instead, we focus on whether Maclin was “surprised by the [witness’s] testimony.” See State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d 138, 141 (Iowa 1979).

2024See id. at 62 (finding no abuse of discretion in admitting new, “substantive testimony” despite it “put[ting] a burden on the defense attorney who had conscientiously prepared for trial”).

2022Citing Rivera v. Woodward, 865 N.W.2d 887, 903 (Iowa 2015), Bean contends there was no prejudice because the “instructions did nothing but place more (not less) of a burden on the defense.” But the same would have been true in Coker, 491 N.W.2d at 148 , which found “that the trial court’s giving of both instructions unduly emphasized [the plaintiff’s] allegedly negligent acts and is therefore prejudicial.” Accord Manley v. O’Brien Cnty.

2018See, e.g., State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 557 (Iowa 2010) (distinguishing between (1) an “attempt to shift the burden to the defense to call 19 the witnesses or to suggest the jury could infer from the defense’s failure to call the witnesses that they would not have said anything helpful to the defense,” which is improper, and (2) a situation “where the prosecutor generally referenced an absence of evidence supporting the defense’s theory of the case,” which is permissible); State v. Davisson, No. 15-1893, 2016 WL 7393890, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016) (“[P]rosectuion comments that are

2018See, e.g., State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 557 (Iowa 2010) (distinguishing between (1) an “attempt to shift the burden to the defense to call 19 the witnesses or to suggest the jury could infer from the defense’s failure to call the witnesses that they would not have said anything helpful to the defense,” which is improper, and (2) a situation “where the prosecutor generally referenced an absence of evidence supporting the defense’s theory of the case,” which is permissible); State v. Davisson, No. 15-1893, 2016 WL 7393890, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016) (“[P]rosectuion comments that are

2015The burden of showing an exception to a speedy-trial deadline “rests squarely on the State.” Miller, 637 N.W.2d at 204 (stating such is the burden in a rule 2.33(2)(b) ninety-day speedy-trial case).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermis-sibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 994 P.2d 700, 709 (2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239 , 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct.App.1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermis-sibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 994 P.2d 700, 709 (2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239 , 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct.App.1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermis-sibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 994 P.2d 700, 709 (2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239 , 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct.App.1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700, 709 (Nev. 2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (Nev. 1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermis-sibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 116 Nev. 215 , 994 P.2d 700, 709 (2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 113 Nev. 1239 , 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct.App.1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

2010Such comment can be viewed as impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the defense.’ ” Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700, 709 (Nev. 2000) (quoting Rippo v. State, 946 P.2d 1017, 1026 (Nev. 1997) (citation omitted)); cf. State v. Poppe, 499 N.W.2d 315, 318 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (“[T]he prosecutor’s suggestions about defendant counting on the witnesses not coming in to testify comes extremely close to suggesting the State does not bear the burden of proving defendant’s guilt.”).

1988Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank, 467 U.S. 867, 875 , 104 S.Ct. 2794, 2799 , 81 L.Ed.2d 718, 727 (1984); Trobaugh, 392 N.W.2d at 156 .

1988Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank, 467 U.S. 867, 875 , 104 S.Ct. 2794, 2799 , 81 L.Ed.2d 718, 727 (1984); Trobaugh, 392 N.W.2d at 156 .

1965Booth v. General Mills, Inc., 243 Iowa 206, 208 , 49 N.W.2d 561, 562 , and citations; Miller v. Mathis, 233 Iowa 221, 227 , 8 N.W.2d 744, 747, 748 .

1965Booth v. General Mills, Inc., 243 Iowa 206, 208 , 49 N.W.2d 561, 562 , and citations; Miller v. Mathis, 233 Iowa 221, 227 , 8 N.W.2d 744, 747, 748 .