plain error in Iowa

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2024State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on this point.”); accord State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98 , 109 (Iowa 2021) (“We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.”).

2022However, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled just last year: “We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.” State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98 , 109 (Iowa 2021); accord State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”).

2025Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236 (1940))); Richardson v. Fitzgerald, 109 N.W. 866, 867 (Iowa 1906) (“As every one knows, it is the province of the Legislature to enact, of the judiciary to expound, and of the executive to enforce, the laws, and any direction by the Legislature that the judicial function shall be performed in a particular way is a plain violation of the Constitution.”) The statute’s assertion of what public policy is doesn’t decide for us the constitutional question.

2025Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236 (1940))); Richardson v. Fitzgerald, 109 N.W. 866, 867 (Iowa 1906) (“As every one knows, it is the province of the Legislature to enact, of the judiciary to expound, and of the executive to enforce, the laws, and any direction by the Legislature that the judicial function shall be performed in a particular way is a plain violation of the Constitution.”) The statute’s assertion of what public policy is doesn’t decide for us the constitutional question.

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2022See Duren, 439 U.S. at 364 .

2020Weatherspoon countered that the Plain issue fell within an exception to the three-year time bar for a ground 1 In Plain, the court applied the second prong of what has come to be known as the Duren test governing fair cross-section challenges. 898 N.W.2d at 827 ; see Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) (requiring a showing “that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community”).

2024The Jones court also noted that the United States Supreme Court “determined that ‘the underrepresentation of as much as ten percent’ did not establish a prima facie case.” Plain, 898 N.W.2d at 825 (citation omitted). 8 disparity that was at the center of Odhung’s claim.” His brief then elaborates on what is missing and what is needed to prove that Odhung was prejudiced by Langford’s omission.

2020Weatherspoon countered that the Plain issue fell within an exception to the three-year time bar for a ground 1 In Plain, the court applied the second prong of what has come to be known as the Duren test governing fair cross-section challenges. 898 N.W.2d at 827 ; see Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979) (requiring a showing “that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community”).

2021See, e.g., Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d at 131 ; United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 , 1016–18 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Orozco-Osbaldo, 615 F.3d 955, 958 (8th Cir. 2010); Kiet Hoang Nguyen, 299 P.3d at 686 .

2021See, e.g., Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d at 131 ; United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 , 1016–18 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Orozco-Osbaldo, 615 F.3d 955, 958 (8th Cir. 2010); Kiet Hoang Nguyen, 299 P.3d at 686 .

2021Therefore, there can be no argument that the provision of S.F. 589 that seeks to prevent unpreserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel from being presented on direct appeal is no obstacle to adoption of plain error. 30 For instance, in Wiborg v. United States, the Supreme Court declared that “if a plain error was committed in a matter so absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it.” 163 U.S. 632 , 658– 59, 16 S. Ct. 1127, 1137 (1896).

2021Therefore, there can be no argument that the provision of S.F. 589 that seeks to prevent unpreserved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel from being presented on direct appeal is no obstacle to adoption of plain error. 30 For instance, in Wiborg v. United States, the Supreme Court declared that “if a plain error was committed in a matter so absolutely vital to defendants, we feel ourselves at liberty to correct it.” 163 U.S. 632 , 658– 59, 16 S. Ct. 1127, 1137 (1896).

2021See, e.g., Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d at 131 ; United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 , 1016–18 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Orozco-Osbaldo, 615 F.3d 955, 958 (8th Cir. 2010); Kiet Hoang Nguyen, 299 P.3d at 686 .

2021See, e.g., Garcia-Paulin, 627 F.3d at 131 ; United States v. Taylor, 627 F.3d 1012 , 1016–18 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Orozco-Osbaldo, 615 F.3d 955, 958 (8th Cir. 2010); Kiet Hoang Nguyen, 299 P.3d at 686 .

2021The federal doctrine was summarized in United States v. Atkinson. 297 U.S. 157 , 159–60, 56 S. Ct. 391, 392 (1936).

2021The federal doctrine was summarized in United States v. Atkinson. 297 U.S. 157 , 159–60, 56 S. Ct. 391, 392 (1936).

2021Similarly, in Henderson v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized that plain error may not be plain to the trial court but may become clear when a case is pending on appeal. 568 U.S. 266, 273 , 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1127 (2013). 3.

2021Similarly, in Henderson v. United States, the Supreme Court emphasized that plain error may not be plain to the trial court but may become clear when a case is pending on appeal. 568 U.S. 266, 273 , 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1127 (2013). 3.

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2025Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236 (1940))); Richardson v. Fitzgerald, 109 N.W. 866, 867 (Iowa 1906) (“As every one knows, it is the province of the Legislature to enact, of the judiciary to expound, and of the executive to enforce, the laws, and any direction by the Legislature that the judicial function shall be performed in a particular way is a plain violation of the Constitution.”) The statute’s assertion of what public policy is doesn’t decide for us the constitutional question.

2025Co., 311 U.S. 223, 236 (1940))); Richardson v. Fitzgerald, 109 N.W. 866, 867 (Iowa 1906) (“As every one knows, it is the province of the Legislature to enact, of the judiciary to expound, and of the executive to enforce, the laws, and any direction by the Legislature that the judicial function shall be performed in a particular way is a plain violation of the Constitution.”) The statute’s assertion of what public policy is doesn’t decide for us the constitutional question.

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2020See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016); In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d at 325 (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); State v. Miles, 344 N.W.2d

2019See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016), In re K.C., 660 N.W.2d 29, 38 (Iowa 2003); State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain error rule in Iowa, have been persistent and resolute in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to yield on the point.”); State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“[W]e do not recognize a “plain error” rule which allows appellate review of constitutional challenges not preserved at the district court level in a proper and timely manner.”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1991); Sta

2023See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).

2022And Crawford’s insufficiency claim would not clear the high bar federal courts set for plain error review. 10 conduct racketeering activity); State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 223 (Tenn. Crim.

2022App. 2017) (“[B]ecause a legal-sufficiency challenge need not be preserved by objection in a trial court, appellant was permitted to present that complaint in the first instance to the court of appeals.”); City of Seattle v. Slack, 784 P.2d 494, 499 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) “[S]ufficiency of the evidence is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal.”); Hayes, 681 N.W.2d at 214 (“[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence [may] be raised on appeal as a matter of right despite the fact that the challenge was not raised in the circuit court.”); Thompson v. S

2022App. 2017) (“[B]ecause a legal-sufficiency challenge need not be preserved by objection in a trial court, appellant was permitted to present that complaint in the first instance to the court of appeals.”); City of Seattle v. Slack, 784 P.2d 494, 499 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) “[S]ufficiency of the evidence is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal.”); Hayes, 681 N.W.2d at 214 (“[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence [may] be raised on appeal as a matter of right despite the fact that the challenge was not raised in the circuit court.”); Thompson v. S

2022App. 2017) (“[B]ecause a legal-sufficiency challenge need not be preserved by objection in a trial court, appellant was permitted to present that complaint in the first instance to the court of appeals.”); City of Seattle v. Slack, 784 P.2d 494, 499 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) “[S]ufficiency of the evidence is a question of constitutional magnitude and can be raised initially on appeal.”); Hayes, 681 N.W.2d at 214 (“[A] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence [may] be raised on appeal as a matter of right despite the fact that the challenge was not raised in the circuit court.”); Thompson v. S