justification defense in Iowa

2026Id. at 630 (“Instructions twelve through nineteen covered the justification defense.

2026Kuhse discussed the lack of any reference to an element as a defense or to a “cross-reference” to a defense the State is required to prove. 937 N.W.2d at 630-31 (finding the jury properly considered the justification defense after 7 reviewing the instructions as a whole, further supported by the closing arguments explaining the application of the defense).

2017See Carey, 709 N.W.2d at 560 (holding prejudice does not exist when there are severe inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony and other evidence is sufficient to overcome a justification defense).

2017See Carey, 709 N.W.2d at 560 (holding prejudice does not exist when there are severe inconsistencies in the defendant’s testimony and other evidence is sufficient to overcome a justification defense).

2022In his view, the evidence “was more than sufficient to show that [he] reasonably believed [the deputy] posed a danger to him and his mother,” the court did not identify the “illegal act” precluding the justification defense, and he “had every right to refuse [the deputy’s] demand to exit the vehicle.” Iowa Code section 704.3, styled “[d]efense of self or another,” states: “A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any actual or imminent use of unlawful force.” See also Iowa Code § 704.

2018Delay , 320 N.W.2d at 834 .

2017An individual is precluded from using the justification defense when “[a]n alternative course of action was available.” State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 134 (Iowa 2006).

2017An individual is precluded from using the justification defense when “[a]n alternative course of action was available.” State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 134 (Iowa 2006).

2023See Lorenzo Baltazar, 935 N.W.2d at 870. 11 that the duty to retreat remains an exception to the justification defense and that the stand-your-ground defense is an exception to the duty to retreat.

2023See id. at 871.

2023See id.

2017See id. at 781 .

2022In his view, the evidence “was more than sufficient to show that [he] reasonably believed [the deputy] posed a danger to him and his mother,” the court did not identify the “illegal act” precluding the justification defense, and he “had every right to refuse [the deputy’s] demand to exit the vehicle.” Iowa Code section 704.3, styled “[d]efense of self or another,” states: “A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend oneself or another from any actual or imminent use of unlawful force.” See also Iowa Code § 704.

2015See State v. Sharkey, 311 N.W.2d 68, 72 (Iowa 1981) (“[Wjhere the record does not contain substantial evidence of self defense the trial court is not obligated to instruct the jury on justification.”).

2020See State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993) (noting the jury is free to believe or disbelieve the evidence and to give weight to the evidence as it sees fit).

2019State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993).

2016See id. at 444.

2016Dukette provides a thorough roadmap-of the rationale for admitting other-acts evidence in response to a justification defense: See Dukette, 761 A.2d at 446-47 ; The case involved murder, not merely assault, but the defendant, and victim were in a romantic relationship..

2016For example, in State v. Carey, although we were not considering a question of admissibility of other acts evidence under rule 5.404(b) and not deciding whether a defendant’s assertion of self-defense eliminated the State’s burden to prove the element of intent, we characterized the effect of the defendant’s justification defense as admitting “every material element of the crimes with which he was charged; the State only bore the burden of proving [he] was not justified in his actions.” 709 N.W.2d 547, 560 (Iowa 2006); see also Douglas v. People, 969 P.2d 1201 , 1206–07 (Colo. 1998) (en banc)

2016For example, in State v. Carey, although we were not considering a question of admissibility of other acts evidence under rule 5.404(6) and not deciding whether a defendant’s assertion of self-defense eliminated the State’s burden to prove the element of intent, we characterized the effect of the defendant’s justification defense .as admitting “every material element, of the crimes with which he was charged; the State only bore the burden of proving [he] was not justified in his actions.” 709 N.W.2d 547, 560 (Iowa 2006); see also Douglas v. People, 969 P.2d 1201, 1206-07 (Colo.1998) (en banc)

2015Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583, 593-99 (5th Cir.2014).

2015Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 748 F.3d 583 , 593-99 (5th Cir. 2014).

2026“The justification defense is built on the notion that one is justified, and thus shouldn’t be held criminally liable for, using reasonable force to protect against an imminent threat or harm.” State v. Johnson, 7 N.W.3d 504 , 508 (Iowa 2024).

2026“The justification defense is built on the notion that one is justified, and thus shouldn’t be held criminally liable for, using reasonable force to protect against an imminent threat or harm.” State v. Johnson, 7 N.W.3d 504 , 508 (Iowa 2024).

2024“The [section 704.2B] reporting requirement—as carried forward in Instruction No. 36—applies to any assertion of the justification defense in a homicide case.” State v. Gibbs, 941 N.W.2d 888 , 900 (Iowa 2020). 8 of the uniform jury instructions.” State v. Booth-Harris, 942 N.W.2d 562 , 580 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted).

2023But this dilemma raises Fifth Amendment concerns nearly identical to those we uncovered in Gibbs, 941 N.W.2d at 898.

2019Our most recent decision on BWS, and the only one in which we addressed the merits of employing expert BWS testimony in aid of a justification defense, is Frei , 831 N.W.2d at 74 -75 .

2019In 2015, Linn filed an "application for authority to retain [an] expert on battered woman syndrome." She cited our opinion in State v. Frei , 831 N.W.2d 70 , 74 (Iowa 2013), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016), contending that the decision supports her position that expert BWS testimony is relevant to a justification defense.

2026See White v. Harkrider, 990 N.W.2d 647 , 656 (Iowa 2023) (characterizing justification for use of force under § 804.8 as “an affirmative defense to assault that the defendants must plead and prove”); see also Williams v. City of Burlington, 516 F. Supp. 3d 851 , 873 (S.D.

2026See State v. Howard, 14 N.W.3d 763 , 767 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (“The [justification] defense is both subjective and objective.”).

2026“Improper allocation of the burden of proof constitutes reversible error.” State v. Lawler, 571 N.W.2d 486, 491 (Iowa 1997).

2024See Brown v. State, No. 22-0459, 2023 WL 3335384 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 10, 2023) (noting in an appeal from the denial of PCR, this court declined to reach the merits of Brown’s claim of ineffective assistance of PCR counsel because the record was inadequate but also 7 recognizing Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018) provides “a ‘narrow exception’ allowing an appellate court to reach the merits of an unpreserved claim that PCR trial counsel was ineffective if the existing record is sufficiently developed to allow resolution”).

2023See State v. Jeffries, 313 N.W.2d 508, 509 (Iowa 1981) (“Justification as a defense is two- pronged: an admission that a prescribed act was done, and the establishment of an exculpatory excuse that takes the act out of the criminal law.”).

2023As there was no evidence of any unlawful force being threatened or directed at anyone, there was no evidence that would have supported giving a justification instruction had Bishop’s counsel requested one.3 As Bishop was not entitled to a justification instruction even if he had requested it, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request such an instruction.4 See State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 855 (Iowa 2019) (noting that counsel has no obligation to raise an issue that has no merit).

2023As there was no evidence of any unlawful force being threatened or directed at anyone, there was no evidence that would have supported giving a justification instruction had Bishop’s counsel requested one.3 As Bishop was not entitled to a justification instruction even if he had requested it, counsel was not ineffective for failing to request such an instruction.4 See State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 855 (Iowa 2019) (noting that counsel has no obligation to raise an issue that has no merit).

2022See, e.g., Chambers v. Oehler, 77 N.W. 853 , 854-55 (Iowa 1899) (holding a justice of the peace could be held liable for false imprisonment when plaintiff was arrested based on subpoena that justice had no authority to issue); Bradley v. 52 Miller, 69 N.W. 426, 426 (Iowa 1896) (“It is elementary doctrine that the levy of an attachment upon the property of a stranger to the writ is a trespass on the rights of the owner, who may maintain either trover, trespass, or replevin, not only against the officer serving the writ, but also against the plaintiff in the suit.”); Yount, 60 N.W. at 114-16 (ho

2022See State v. Hudson, No. 15-1367, 2016 WL 7403711, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016) (concluding “the deputy’s use of force did not exceed the level necessary to accomplish the detention,” “the gradual increase in his use of force was not excessive,” the defendant “was not entitled to resist the detention by twice striking the deputy in the head,” and “the district court correctly determined [the defendant] was not entitled to a justification instruction”); State v. Hebeler, No. 00- 0377, 2001 WL 736025 , at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. June 13, 2001) (stating a deputy was “justified in the use of such