If a defect, error, or irregularity is discovered in any indictment or information which,
on motion of either party, causes the indictment or information to be dismissed or the
prosecution to be set aside or reversed on appeal, a new indictment or information may be\n\nTue Dec 09 21:54:30 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 802 (32, 0)
§802.9, LIMITATION OF CRIMINAL ACTIONS 4\n\nfound within thirty days after such action notwithstanding the time limitations enumerated
in this chapter.
[C51, §2949, 3251, 3252; R60, §4699, 4711, 4712, 5011 – 5013; C73, §4344, 4356, 4357, 4617
– 4619; C97, §5326, 5331, 5539; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §13788, 13796, 13797, 14027; C46, 50, 54,
58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, §776.9, 777.8, 777.9, 795.5; C79, 81, §802.9]
2021 Acts, ch 76, §147
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1980–2018 · leading case:
State v. Shank, 296 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1980).
State v. Shank, 296 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 2× “The authority to reprosecute is also implicit in section 802.9, The Code, which extends for thirty days the time for filing a new indictment or information after dismissal for “a defect or irregularity” in an indictment or information despite the period of limitations otherwise…”
State v. Rout, 478 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 2× “Previously, we determined that a dismissal for the State’s failure to file minutes of testimony with the trial information as required by rule 10(6)(c)(l) was without prejudice to the State to repro-secute, upon filing a proper trial information, pursuant to rule 10(7) and Iowa…”
State v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 14× “When this was overruled, he again moved to dismiss the charge, as not being filed within the thirty days prescribed by section 802.9, The Code 1979. This second motion was also overruled.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.