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 2004–2020 0 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. Maxwellgreen2 sentences2020Cf. State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008) (“When the submission of a superfluous jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, no prejudice results.”). 2017As the district court determined, “at worst, the language is mere surplusage.” The court concluded, “There was no evidence of skull or rib fractures with respect to the victim in this case, thus no possibility that the jury could have determined that such evidence was sufficient to constitute a serious injury under the sentence.” See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008) (“When the submission of a superfluous jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective | 5 | 5 |
State v. Tejedagreen2 sentences2014See State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 755 (Iowa 2004) (finding defendant was not prejudiced by the submission of a superfluous jury instruction because there was overwheming evidence of his guilt). 2008See Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d at 755 (finding where the prosecution presents ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the effect of the superfluous jury instruction is merely speculative, no prejudice results in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel analysis). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Davis, 584 N.W.2d 913, 919 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (“Davis cannot prove he was prejudiced” by his attorney’s failure to propose a more detailed instruction because “[t]he evidence was so overwhelming”); see also State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 197 (Iowa 2008) (“When the submission of a superfluous jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, no prejudice results.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2008In ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims “the instruction complained of [must be] of such a nature that the resulting conviction violate[s] due process.” State v. Hill, 449 N.W.2d 626, 629 (Iowa 1989). *197 When the submission of a superfluous jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, no prejudice results. | 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. Max v. Thorndike
green
1 sentence2017If “the submission of a superfluous jury instruction does not give rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred, in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, no prejudice results.” Id. at 322 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Liddell
green
1 sentence2004In this case submission of this superfluous jury instruction did not raise an issue which “give[s] rise to a reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different had counsel not erred.” See Spies, 672 N.W.2d at 799 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |