1. In all criminal cases in which the offender is convicted of a felony in which the act
or acts committed by the offender caused the death of another person, in addition to the
amount determined to be payable and ordered to be paid to a victim for pecuniary damages,
as defined under section 910.1, and determined under section 910.3, the court shall also order
the offender to pay at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars in restitution to the victim’s
estate if the victim died testate. If the victim died intestate the court shall order the offender to
pay the restitution to the victim’s heirs at law as determined pursuant to section 633.210. The
obligation to pay the additional amount shall not be dischargeable in any proceeding under
the federal Bankruptcy Act. Payment of the additional amount shall have the same priority
as payment of a victim’s pecuniary damages under section 910.2, in the offender’s plan for
restitution.
2. An award under this section does not preclude or supersede the right of a victim’s estate
or heirs at law to bring a civil action against the offender for damages arising out of the same
facts or event. However, no evidence relating to the entry of the judgment against the offender
pursuant to this section or the amount of the award ordered pursuant to this section shall be
permitted to be introduced in any civil action for damages arising out of the same facts or
event.
3. An offender who is ordered to pay a victim’s estate or heirs at law under this section
is precluded from denying the elements of the felony offense which resulted in the order for
payment in any subsequent civil action for damages arising out of the same facts or event.
4. An award under this section made to the victim’s estate or heirs at law shall not be
reduced by any third-party payment, including any insurance payment, unless the offender
is a named or covered insured.
97 Acts, ch 125, §11; 2003 Acts, 1st Ex, ch 2, §63, 209; 2018 Acts, ch 1103, §1
Referred to in §915.100
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Daimonay Darice Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2017).
· cites it 178× “For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that a recent change in Iowa sentencing law does not affect mandatory minimum restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B. We further conclude that section 910.”
State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 106× “[1] She claims the restitution award imposed by the district court under Iowa Code section 910.3B violates due process, double jeopardy, and the prohibition against excessive fines.”
State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 92× “He claims that portion of the sentence which requires him to pay $150,000 in victim restitution pursuant to section 910.3B (Supp.1997) violates his rights under the Excessive Fines, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2004).
· cites it 44× “23 in pecuniary damages to the victim's widow, Velma Boykin (Boykin), $5,000 to the Iowa Crime Victim Compensation Program, and $150,000 to the Nathaniel Boykin Estate (Estate) in restitution as required by Iowa Code section 910.3B (1999). Klawonn appealed the restitution order,…”
State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 40× “Restitution Award: Iowa Code section 910.3B. In addition to the five-year indeterminate sentence and pecuniary damage restitution award, the district court entered an additional restitution award payable to Flowers' estate in the amount of $150,000 pursuant to section 910.”
State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894 (Iowa 2003).
· cites it 10× “Although we find no basis to reverse his conviction, we conclude the imposition of $150,000 in victim restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.3B (1999) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, an error conceded by the State.”
State v. Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 12× “Iowa Code section 910.3B (Supp. 1997). Artzer claims the restitution award of $150,000 imposed as a part of the sentence violated the Excessive Fine and Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Corwin, 616 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 20× “The question is whether, on remand for resentenc-ing from a prior appeal, the district court erred by adding two $150,000 judgments for restitution to Corwin’s sentence pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.3B (Supp. 1997), a statute enacted in the interim.”
State v. Sutton, 636 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 4× “The court also rejected Sutton's constitutional challenge to the imposition of $150,000 in victim restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B(1) (Supp.1997). The case is now before us on Sutton's petition for further review.”
State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 2002).
· cites it 2× “The guilty-plea colloquy set out above, however, supports the State’s claim that she, in fact, did understand what she was doing, and the defendant and her counsel both made it clear at the plea hearing that she waived any defense of diminished responsibility. The motion in…”
State v. Kolbet, 638 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 4× “Whether restitution requirement of section 910.3B violates double jeopardy protections or constitutes an excessive fine.”
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Mason James Ouderkirk, 845 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 2× “Immediately after the first civil judgment in 2006, the estate filed a civil lawsuit alleging the Heemstra family conspired to fraudulently transfer and conceal Rodney and Berta’s real estate in an attempt to evade collection of the wrongful-death judgment.”
— Iowa Code § 910.3B(1) — 17 cases
State of Iowa v. Daimonay Darice Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2017).
“For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that a recent change in Iowa sentencing law does not affect mandatory minimum restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B. We further conclude that section 910.”
State v. Klawonn, 688 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2004).
“23 in pecuniary damages to the victim's widow, Velma Boykin (Boykin), $5,000 to the Iowa Crime Victim Compensation Program, and $150,000 to the Nathaniel Boykin Estate (Estate) in restitution as required by Iowa Code section 910.3B (1999). Klawonn appealed the restitution order,…”
State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000).
“He claims that portion of the sentence which requires him to pay $150,000 in victim restitution pursuant to section 910.3B (Supp.1997) violates his rights under the Excessive Fines, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Sutton, 636 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2001).
“The court also rejected Sutton's constitutional challenge to the imposition of $150,000 in victim restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B(1) (Supp.1997). The case is now before us on Sutton's petition for further review.”
State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504 (Iowa 2000).
“Restitution Award: Iowa Code section 910.3B. In addition to the five-year indeterminate sentence and pecuniary damage restitution award, the district court entered an additional restitution award payable to Flowers' estate in the amount of $150,000 pursuant to section 910.”
— Iowa Code § 910.3B(2) — 4 cases
State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000).
“He claims that portion of the sentence which requires him to pay $150,000 in victim restitution pursuant to section 910.3B (Supp.1997) violates his rights under the Excessive Fines, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State of Iowa v. Daimonay Darice Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2017).
“For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that a recent change in Iowa sentencing law does not affect mandatory minimum restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B. We further conclude that section 910.”
State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2000).
“[1] She claims the restitution award imposed by the district court under Iowa Code section 910.3B violates due process, double jeopardy, and the prohibition against excessive fines.”
— Iowa Code § 910.3B(3) — 2 cases
State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2000).
“He claims that portion of the sentence which requires him to pay $150,000 in victim restitution pursuant to section 910.3B (Supp.1997) violates his rights under the Excessive Fines, Double Jeopardy, and Due Process Clauses of the state and federal constitutions.”
State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2000).
“[1] She claims the restitution award imposed by the district court under Iowa Code section 910.3B violates due process, double jeopardy, and the prohibition against excessive fines.”
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.