Rich tripartite test (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

Rich tripartite test in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2023 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.

Followed or applied (13)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. McGrewgreen
iowa · 1994 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2023
2 sentences

2015See McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 (citing the Rich tripartite test, and noting that since Rich we have adhered to its analysis regarding application of the incidental rule); Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d at 750-51 .

2015See McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 (citing the Rich tripartite test, and noting that since Rich we have adhered to its analysis regarding application of the incidental rule); Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d at 750–51.

33
State v. Doughtygreen
iowa · 1984 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2017
2 sentences

2015In State v. Doughty, we quoted at length from Rich, concluding an instruction that did not outline the Rich tripartite test was flawed and required a new trial under the circumstances. 359 N.W.2d 439 , 440–42 (Iowa 1984).

2015Cf. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d at 441 (noting that “[w]hile the jury could well have found that the removal and confinement were not merely incident to the sexual abuse, 53 we cannot say it would be compelled to reach that conclusion” based on a faulty jury instruction that did not incorporate the Rich tripartite test).

33
State of Iowa v. Scott Robert Robinsongreen
iowa · 2015 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2018–2023
2 sentences

2023See Robinson, 859 N.W.2d at 478 (“Our cases have generally held that the substantially-increased-risk-of-harm prong of the Rich tripartite test may be satisfied if the duration of confinement substantially exceeded that of the underlying crime.”).

2018See, e.g. , State v. Robinson , 859 N.W.2d 464 , 475-78 (Iowa 2015) (discussing cases that have applied the Rich tripartite test).

22
State v. Marrgreen
iowa · 1982 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015In State v. Marr, 316 N.W.2d 176, 180 (Iowa 1982), however, we concluded the State failed to produce sufficient evidence under the Rich tripartite test to support a kidnapping conviction.

2015In State v. Marr, 316 N.W.2d 176, 180 (Iowa 1982), however, we concluded the State failed to produce sufficient evidence under the Rich tripartite test to support a kidnapping conviction.

22
Holmes v. Stategreen
iowactapp · 2009 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidéntal rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crimes fo

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22
State v. Rippergergreen
iowactapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 (citing the Rich tripartite test, and noting that since Rich we have adhered to its analysis regarding application of the incidental rule); Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d at 750-51 .

2015See McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 (citing the Rich tripartite test, and noting that since Rich we have adhered to its analysis regarding application of the incidental rule); Ripperger, 514 N.W.2d at 750–51.

22
State v. Hardingreen
iowa · 1984 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22
State v. Griffingreen
iowa · 1997 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidéntal rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crimes fo

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22
State v. Ledezmagreen
iowactapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidéntal rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crimes fo

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22
State v. Hattergreen
iowa · 1987 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidéntal rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crimes fo

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22
State v. Knuppgreen
iowa · 1981 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015We applied the Rich tripartite test in State v. Knupp, 310 N.W.2d 179, 182-83 (Iowa 1981).

2015We applied the Rich tripartite test in State v. Knupp, 310 N.W.2d 179 , 182–83 (Iowa 1981).

12
State v. Meadgreen
iowa · 1982 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Id. at 445 .

2015See Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 373 ; McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 ; Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Iowa 1984); Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 189 ; Newman, 326 N.W.2d at 801 ; Folck, 325 N.W.2d at 371 ; Mead, 318 N.W.2d at 443–44; Marr, 316 N.W.2d at 178 ; Knupp, 310 N.W.2d at 183 . 4 4In most of the incidental rule cases, the defendant is convicted of an underlying crime such as robbery or sexual abuse.

12
State v. Farrisgreen
iowa · 1984 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015See 359 N.W.2d at 190. .

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 736-37 (Iowa Ct.App.2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct.App.1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidéntal rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crimes fo

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Newman green
iowa · 1982
2 sentences

2015See Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 373 ; McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 ; Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Iowa 1984); Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 189 ; Newman, 326 N.W.2d at 801 ; Folck, 325 N.W.2d at 371 ; Mead, 318 N.W.2d at 443-44 ; Marr, 316 N.W.2d at 178 ; Knupp, 310 N.W.2d at 183 . 4 C.

2015See Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 373 ; McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 ; Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Iowa 1984); Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 189 ; Newman, 326 N.W.2d at 801 ; Folck, 325 N.W.2d at 371 ; Mead, 318 N.W.2d at 443–44; Marr, 316 N.W.2d at 178 ; Knupp, 310 N.W.2d at 183 . 4 4In most of the incidental rule cases, the defendant is convicted of an underlying crime such as robbery or sexual abuse.

22015–2015
State v. Folck green
iowa · 1982
2 sentences

2015See Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 373 ; McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 ; Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335-36 ; State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Iowa 1984); Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 189 ; Newman, 326 N.W.2d at 801 ; Folck, 325 N.W.2d at 371 ; Mead, 318 N.W.2d at 443-44 ; Marr, 316 N.W.2d at 178 ; Knupp, 310 N.W.2d at 183 . 4 C.

2015See Griffin, 564 N.W.2d at 373 ; McGrew, 515 N.W.2d at 39 ; Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439, 440 (Iowa 1984); Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 189 ; Newman, 326 N.W.2d at 801 ; Folck, 325 N.W.2d at 371 ; Mead, 318 N.W.2d at 443–44; Marr, 316 N.W.2d at 178 ; Knupp, 310 N.W.2d at 183 . 4 4In most of the incidental rule cases, the defendant is convicted of an underlying crime such as robbery or sexual abuse.

22015–2015
State v. Misner green
iowa · 1987
2 sentences

2015For instance, in Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 , the court reprised the Rich tripartite test, noting that confinement or removal must exceed that normally incident to the underlying crime and that confinement or removal sufficient to support a charge of kidnapping may exist if the evidence shows the confinement or removal substantially increased the risk of harm, significantly lessened the risk of detection, or significantly facilitated the escape of the perpetrator.

2015See, e.g., Hatter, 414 N.W.2d at 335–36; Misner, 410 N.W.2d at 222 ; Hardin, 359 N.W.2d at 190 (“We reaffirm the holding and language of Rich.”); see also, e.g., Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 , 736–37 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating the Rich tripartite test); State v. Ledezma, 549 N.W.2d 307, 311 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (same); cf. State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Iowa 1997) (reiterating the policy behind the incidental rule and noting the “legislature did not intend to afford prosecutors the option of bootstrapping convictions for kidnapping, carrying life sentences, onto charges for crime

22015–2015
State of Iowa v. Allen Bradley Clay green
iowa · 2012
1 sentence

2017As a plaintiff in a PCR action, Wright “must prove prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. ‘In determining whether this standard has been met, we must consider the totality of the evidence, what factual findings would have been affected by counsel’s errors, and whether the effect was pervasive or isolated.’” Clay, 824 N.W.2d at 496 .

12017–2017

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 710.1 (5) IA § Iowa Code § 710.2 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 902.1 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check