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.
17 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2021 1 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 v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2021See State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1998) (“[T]he giving of a joint criminal conduct instruction in instances in which the alleged multiple participants are either principals or aiders and abettors in the same crime does not require reversal if there is no opportunity for the defendant to have been found guilty based on anything other than his own conduct as a principal or an aider and abettor of the crime with which he is charged.”). 3. 2018See State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1998) (“[T]he giving of a joint criminal conduct instruction in instances in which the alleged multiple participants are either principals or aiders and abettors in the same crime does not require reversal if there is no opportunity for the defendant to have been found guilty based on anything other than his own conduct as a principal or an aider and abettor of the crime with which he is charged.”) Dukes, Stokes, and Moore—dressed in black clothing and wearing masks—entered Henderson’s trailer to steal marijuana after Robinson lured the other two | 9 | 9 |
State of Iowa v. Kent Anthony Tyler IIIgreen2 sentences2017In Tyler , we considered the question of whether the evidence supported a joint criminal conduct instruction. 873 N.W.2d at 752 . 2017Id. at 754 . ' Although the fact pattern is different in this case, we conclude that the teaching of Tyler with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a joint criminal conduct instruction is fully applicable here. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2017Shorter asserts the case is similar to State v. Smith, 739 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2007). 2014See State v. Smith, 739 N.W.2d 289, 294 (Iowa 2007) (referring to defendant’s contention that there was insufficient evidence to submit a joint criminal conduct instruction to the jury); State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 1998) (citing defendant’s argument that joint criminal conduct instruction had “no application to the facts in the present case”). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Maxwellgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008); State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 754 (Iowa 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tejedagreen1 sentence2017See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008); State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 754 (Iowa 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martensgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Martens, 569 N.W.2d 482, 485 (Iowa 1997) (stating when there is a general verdict of guilty, “we have no way of determining which theory the jury accepted”). | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See Conner v. State, 362 N.W.2d 449, 455 (Iowa 1985). | 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 v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2007There we said, “[t]he most we can derive from defendant’s argument in the present case is that perhaps [the joint criminal conduct instruction] was redundant in conveying to the jury the necessary elements of the crime.” Id. at 685 . 2007In State v. Jackson, this court stated when the district court erroneously gives a joint criminal conduct instruction in instances where the alleged multiple participants are either principals or aiders and abettors in the same crime, a reversal is not required as long as there is no opportunity for the defendant to be found guilty based on anything other than the defendant’s own conduct as a principal or aider and abettor of the crime charged. 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (1998) (citing Thompson, 397 N.W.2d at 685–86 and Kern, 307 N.W.2d at 28 ). | 3 | 1998–2007 |
State v. Kern
green
2 sentences2007In State v. Jackson, this court stated when the district court erroneously gives a joint criminal conduct instruction in instances where the alleged multiple participants are either principals or aiders and abettors in the same crime, a reversal is not required as long as there is no opportunity for the defendant to be found guilty based on anything other than the defendant’s own conduct as a principal or aider and abettor of the crime charged. 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (1998) (citing Thomp *295 son, 397 N.W.2d at 685 -86 and Kern, 307 N.W.2d at 28 ). 2007In State v. Jackson, this court stated when the district court erroneously gives a joint criminal conduct instruction in instances where the alleged multiple participants are either principals or aiders and abettors in the same crime, a reversal is not required as long as there is no opportunity for the defendant to be found guilty based on anything other than the defendant’s own conduct as a principal or aider and abettor of the crime charged. 587 N.W.2d 764, 766 (1998) (citing Thompson, 397 N.W.2d at 685–86 and Kern, 307 N.W.2d at 28 ). | 3 | 1998–2007 |
State v. Hohle
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2016Id. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Palmer
green
1 sentence2016Palmer, 569 N.W.2d at 618 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.