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.
11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2016–2023 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 of Iowa v. Zyriah Henry Floyd Schlittergreen2 sentences2020In any event, the prosecutorial misconduct analysis “easily translates to an evaluation of prosecutorial error.” Id. 9 law, (2) making a golden-rule argument, and (3) arguing law not contained in the jury instructions. 2020To determine whether Martin was denied a fair trial, we consider five factors: “(1) the severity and pervasiveness of the [error]; (2) the significance of the [error] to the central issues in the case; (3) the strength of the State’s evidence; (4) the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures; and (5) the extent to which the defense invited the [error].” Id. at 877 ; accord Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d at 13 394 (stating the factors used to evaluate a prosecutorial misconduct claim “easily translate to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). a. | 5 | 6 |
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2020To determine whether Martin was denied a fair trial, we consider five factors: “(1) the severity and pervasiveness of the [error]; (2) the significance of the [error] to the central issues in the case; (3) the strength of the State’s evidence; (4) the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures; and (5) the extent to which the defense invited the [error].” Id. at 877 ; accord Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d at 13 394 (stating the factors used to evaluate a prosecutorial misconduct claim “easily translate to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). a. 2018Id. ; see also State v. Schlitter , 881 N.W.2d 380 , 394 (Iowa 2016) (making a distinction between prosecutorial misconduct and prosecutorial error and noting the Graves multifactor test for prosecutorial misconduct "easily translate[s] to an evaluation of prosecutorial error."). | 2 | 6 |
State of Iowa v. Kenneth L. Lillygreen1 sentence2023See id. (noting the multifactor test used to evaluate prosecutorial misconduct “easily translate[s] to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”); see also State v. Veal, 930 N.W.2d 319, 334 (Iowa 2019) (treating a claim framed as prosecutorial misconduct “as one of prosecutorial misconduct or error” and analyzing the two concepts simultaneously). 11 district court’s decision denying this claim for an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maxwellgreen1 sentence2017See Schlitter, N.W.2d at 394 (stating the multifactor test set out to evaluate the statements in determining if there was misconduct and if that was misconduct was prejudicial “easily translate to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). 13 v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 , 195 195–96 (Iowa 2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schoelermangreen1 sentence2017Although counsel is not required to predict changes in the law, counsel must “exercise reasonable diligence in deciding whether an issue is ‘worth raising.’” State v. Westeen, 591 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Iowa 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Westeengreen1 sentence2017Although counsel is not required to predict changes in the law, counsel must “exercise reasonable diligence in deciding whether an issue is ‘worth raising.’” State v. Westeen, 591 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Iowa 1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.