State contends error in Iowa

2018To preserve error, the father had an "obligation to demand other, different, or additional services prior to a permanency or termination hearing." In re A.A.G ., 708 N.W.2d 85 , 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).

2018To preserve error, the mother had an "obligation to demand other, different, or additional services prior to a permanency or termination hearing." In re A.A.G ., 708 N.W.2d 85 , 91 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005).

2017“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); see also In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (requiring parents to raise reasonable-efforts argument before the termination hearing to preserve the claim for appellate review).

2016The State contends error was not preserved on either of these claims because the father did not raise the issues prior to the termination hearing and the juvenile court did not rule on them.2 “It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); see In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (“Even issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.

2018It is well-settled that under this standard the court “cannot deprive a child of permanency after the State has proven a ground for termination . . . by hoping someday a parent will learn to be a parent and be able to provide a stable home for the child.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 112 (Iowa 2014). 2 The State contends error is not preserved on this issue because the father did not argue at trial that termination was not in the child’s best interests.

2017“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); see also In re L.M.W., 518 N.W.2d 804, 807 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (requiring parents to raise reasonable-efforts argument before the termination hearing to preserve the claim for appellate review).

2016The State contends error was not preserved on either of these claims because the father did not raise the issues prior to the termination hearing and the juvenile court did not rule on them.2 “It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); see In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003) (“Even issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.

2014The State contends error was not preserved because the basis alleged in the motion was “insufficiency of the evidence and verdict inconsistent with the evidence.” Pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6), a court has discretion to grant a new trial “[w]hen the verdict is contrary to law or evidence.” Our supreme court clarified that standard in State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 658-59 (Iowa 1998) (stating a court may grant a new trial if the court concludes “that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence”).

2010As a starting point, it is well-established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. 2 State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 100 (Iowa 1997).

2004State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 759 (Iowa 1998).

1992The State relies on State v. Mary, 368 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Iowa 1985); State v. Hershey, 348 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 1984); State v. Watts, 441 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Iowa App.1989), to support its position.

1992The State relies on State v. Mary, 368 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Iowa 1985); State v. Hershey, 348 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 1984); State v. Watts, 441 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Iowa App.1989), to support its position.

1992The State relies on State v. Mary, 368 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Iowa 1985); State v. Hershey, 348 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 1984); State v. Watts, 441 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Iowa App.1989), to support its position.

1986It cites State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982), as authority for the proposition that a defendant who asserts the inapplicability of the habitual offender statute to his or her case must make the proper objection prior to trial of the underlying charges.

1985The State contends that the rule of Kimball should be reconsidered in light of Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 340-41 , 98 S.Ct. 1091, 1095 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319, 326 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the giving of an instruction cautioning the jury against drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence *175 at trial did not violate the fifth amendment of the federal constitution even though the defendant objected to the giving of the instruction.

1985The State contends that the rule of Kimball should be reconsidered in light of Lakeside v. Oregon, 435 U.S. 333, 340-41 , 98 S.Ct. 1091, 1095 , 55 L.Ed.2d 319, 326 (1978), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the giving of an instruction cautioning the jury against drawing adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence *175 at trial did not violate the fifth amendment of the federal constitution even though the defendant objected to the giving of the instruction.