Appealing, Wagner contends a number of trial court errors mandate reversal of his conviction.[1]. Our review of the facts indicates that Wagner's good time was revoked because of the number of disciplinary rule violations, including previous rule violations. Gen., Gordon E. Allen, Sp. He also asserts the insurrection statute is unconstitutionally vague. When Wagner's counsel learned of these events, he renewed Wagner's motion for a new trial. Webster's New Third International Dictionary 470 (1976). Wagner and several other inmates were promised no reprisals for their activities on September 2. Gen., for appellee. Trial court properly rejected Wagner's motion to sever because it was untimely. See State v. Herndon, 257 N.W.2d 19, 21 (Iowa 1977). Wagner was arraigned May 10, 1983. Accordingly, our result in this case, enforcing the similar provisions of the Illinois implied consent law, cannot offend the law or public policy of Iowa. Wagner, individually and as the executor of Brissey’s estate, filed a wrongful death suit against the State of Iowa.3 A jury trial was held from February 4 to February 13, 2013. He further claims that this topic was not touched upon in the disciplinary hearing on September 17; however, he urges that the warden and director concede that his good time was taken away because of his involvement in the hostage situation. For the fifth and each subsequent violation,... the warden shall have the power, with the approval of the state director, to deprive the prisoner of any portion or all of the good time that the convict may have earned. He then sought, by motion in limine, to exclude all State testimony relating to the thoughts, mental impressions, or nonconsent of the non-testifying hostages. Iowa Code § 802.3 (1981). See Iowa Code § 910.7 (1983); State v. Kaelin, 362 N.W.2d 526, 528 (Iowa 1985); State v. Janz, 358 N.W.2d 547, 548-49 (Iowa 1984); State v. Storrs, 351 N.W.2d 520, 522 (Iowa 1984). 6:30 p.m. ESPN — North Carolina at Iowa. 116 R.I. at 533, 359 A.2d at 318. 353 N.W.2d at 93-94. Turning to Wagner's due process claim,[2] he must prove (1) the delay was unreasonable and (2) because of the delay his ability to present his defense actually was prejudiced. We conclude that any agreement for immunity or amnesty that is produced by unlawful threats, such as the hostage situation in this case, is contrary to public policy and void. Wagner alleges as error trial court's failure to instruct the jury on his claim his actions were motivated by a desire to protect the guard trainees. Get premium, high resolution news photos at Getty Images This requirement is embodied in Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 which, although allowing a defendant to depose all witnesses listed by the State on its trial information, requires a defendant to establish the necessity for deposing other persons. Following numerous delays, Wagner was tried and convicted on all nine counts. See State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416, 419 (Iowa 1984). 2d at 956. 6(1). We review de novo in light of the totality of the circumstances. After reviewing the newspaper articles, we conclude they were on the whole objective, factual reports that expressed no view on Wagner's guilt or innocence. Id. Atty. Wagner misinterprets the statements of the warden and director in making his claim. Approximately twenty months later the State, by trial information, charged Wagner with eight counts of second-degree kidnapping in violation of Iowa Code sections 710.1, 710.3, and 703.1 (1981), and one count of insurrection in violation of Iowa Code sections 718.1 and 703.1 (1981). Judge Bainter correctly denied Wagner's motion. Trial court committed no abuse of discretion in rejecting Wagner's motion for change of venue. We hold trial court properly rejected Wagner's request for an instruction allowing a negative inference to be drawn. He has made no showing their testimony would not merely duplicate that of other witnesses. There were no pre-impact skid marks on the road. Wagner's appeal arises out of a major uprising at the Iowa State Penitentiary on September 2, 1981. We find the notice of misconduct properly informed Wagner of the violations which led to the revocation of his good time. Nothing in the record indicates that Judge Miller considered anything outside the record in the postconviction proceeding when ruling on Wagner's motion for a new trial and an enlargement of the findings of fact. denied, 425 U.S. 961, 96 S. Ct. 1744, 48 L. Ed. We find no merit in Wagner's next claim that it was a violation of the rules to revoke Wagner's good time contemporaneous with the decision of the disciplinary committee. Because this contention is asserted for the first time on appeal and was never considered by trial court, it is waived. Wagner contends the evidence not only showed he was motivated to seize the guards by compulsion, a defense the jury was instructed on, but *214 also showed he acted as he did in order to protect the well-being of the guards.[4]. Co., 382 N.W.2d 100, 107 (Iowa 1986). A fair and impartial tribunal imported from another institution decided the facts. The hearing was set on the resisted motion for May 3, 1983. In contrast with his compulsion defense, Wagner presented no evidence to support a claim he acted as he did out of concern for the guards' safety. As a result, the facts supporting each of the eight kidnapping counts necessarily overlap and involve details central to each of the other counts. He additionally threatened and intimidated prison staff members to give up a key and evacuate the cellhouse. Details Date: March 10 Time: 1:30 pm Event Tags: iowa, Oral Arguments. 19-1278. 523 F.2d 1088 - UNITED STATES v. GORHAM, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Contentions relating to restitution. State v. Cuevas, 282 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Iowa 1979); see also Hall, 395 N.W.2d at 643; State v. Sunclades, 305 N.W.2d 491, 494 (Iowa 1981). Wagner next asserts several issues grounded on the State's decision to call as witnesses only three of the eight guards taken hostage during the uprising. Reversed and remanded. The committee found Wagner guilty of rule violations and imposed punishment of 30 days solitary, 180 days administrative segregation and suspension of honor contract. See Wilson, 406 N.W.2d at 446; State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 423 (Iowa), cert. 359 A.2d 315 - STATE v. ROLLINS, Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Justification based on defense of third party. Gen., for appellee. State v. Doss, 355 N.W.2d 874, 878 (Iowa 1984). Arthur Wagner, III (Appellant) was convicted of one court of sale of cocaine and two counts of sale of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. Picard v. State, 339 N.W.2d 368, 373 (Iowa 1983). Gen., and Layne Lindebak, Asst. Bp Wagner Farms LLC is an Iowa Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on January 23, 2020. To utilize the testimony of all eight would have been cumulative in nature. In the course of the disturbance, Wagner was the principal actor in the forced detention of eight guard trainees. Venue Iowa Supreme Court « State v. Schiebout, Case No. While we have not made a thorough state-by-state check, it appears that at least three states -- Florida, Maryland and Louisiana -- have statutes which actually prohibit stacking. Whether the action of the warden and director violated due process must be examined in light of the balancing, through mutual accommodation of the prison's needs and Wagner's rights, that was described in Niday. 19–1278 KRYSTAL WAGNER, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen, Plaintiff–Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA and WILLIAM L. SPECE, a/k/a BILL L. SPECE, Defendants–Appellees. We find the warden acted reasonably under the circumstances present. STATE of Iowa, Appellee, IV. [1] This section provides in pertinent part: A prisoner who violates any of such rules [prison rules of discipline] shall forfeit the reduction of sentence earned by him, as follows: 5. By pretrial motion Wagner sought severance of the five counts of kidnapping for which the State did not intend to call the victims. We therefore reverse the district court judgment with respect to the restitution plan order only, and remand to permit Wagner an opportunity to be heard regarding the plan of restitution approved by the court. Wagner's initial defense was based upon a claim of compulsion. The narrow range of protected liberty interests that are afforded a prisoner must be flexible and attuned to the setting by balancing and adjusting the prisoner's rights against the needs of the prison. On April 5, 1983, a motion for a trial and an amendment or enlargement of facts was filed by Wagner. 1985). Wagner misinterprets the statements of the warden and director in making his claim. From F.2d, Reporter Series. Examining Iowa Code section 718.1 in light of the above principles demonstrates the phrase "acting in concert" has a sufficiently defined meaning to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair warning of what is prohibited. The right of confrontation guarantees a criminal defendant the right to face and cross-examine those who testify against him or her. For purposes of future sentencing, Wagner was further accused of being an habitual offender. D. No reprisals. Wagner first contends that because five guards did not testify there was no substantial evidence in the record from which the jury could find these guards did not consent to being taken hostage. The matter was heard before Judge John C. Miller who filed a ruling denying and dismissing the application on March 25, 1983. Black's Law Dictionary 262 (5th ed. This information is uploaded quarterly. v. Wagner was charged with yelling and screaming at inmates; ordering and intimidating officers out of a cellhouse; and stealing a cellhouse key, a gas grenade, a walkie-talkie and ¾ of a pound of sugar. We agree with the trial court. [4] Wagner's contention is apparently based on Iowa Code § 704.3: A person is justified in the use of reasonable force when he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another from any imminent use of unlawful force. Wagner claims the State cannot meet this burden because the legislature has not enacted any criminal law that would punish an escape occurring outside its territorial borders. 63 [492 A.2d 290] and Sciple v. Cosse-Hickey Co. Inc. (La. Such a showing should not only demonstrate some need for further development of the record, but should indicate why the challenged actions are believed to have been ineffective and what prejudice is likely to have resulted from them. The two-week period between the incident and the appealed decision served as a "cooling-off period" in which the warden regained any objectivity he might have lost. The State concedes Wagner has had no opportunity to contest this plan of restitution. Wagner v. State. Here, Wagner has made no attempt to demonstrate why further proceedings are necessary or what he hopes to establish by them. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries Iowa R.Crim.P. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. Asst. Wagner was the only individual on the list of the designated beneficiaries of the no reprisals agreement to be charged with institutional rule violations and to suffer disciplinary penalties. The executive department may wish to live up to such agreements for reasons it finds valid; when it does not, we will not uphold the agreements. Select this result to view Mary Margaret Wagner's phone number, address, and more. That this showing may necessarily include evidence of other crimes or unfavorable circumstances does not render the evidence inadmissible. Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and McGIVERIN, CARTER, WOLLE, and NEUMAN, JJ. Wagner did become involved in the taking and holding of hostages, but was not charged specifically with this misconduct. Wagner responds that the duress existing on September 2 was generated by other inmates. He received the committee's decision on September 17 and appealed the decision to the warden on September 18. They also read newspapers. Wagner's good time was forfeited on the day before his scheduled release. Wagner maintains that an impartial tribunal or decisionmaker is a fundamental requirement of due process in an adjudicatory proceeding. The warden's decision did not involve establishment of guilt of the rule violations nor depend upon the credibility of witnesses, but hinged on the imposition of penalty. In our experience as an appellate court, we have found that they perform this skill well. Additionally, to the extent particular jurors may be substantially prejudiced against a defendant, rigorous voir dire can be trusted to expose these prejudices. Wagner was not denied the right to appeal; he did in fact appeal from the disciplinary committee's decision. The company's principal address is 1067 V Ave, Norway, IA 52318. The disciplinary committee that was chosen to hear and decide the charges against Wagner included individuals not employed at or associated with the penitentiary. Because no substantial evidence of third-party defense was presented, no jury issue was generated. A. This item represents a case in PACER, the U.S. Government's website for federal case data. In this context we address Wagner's claims. Inmates took a number of penitentiary employees hostage and caused substantial property damage to the penitentiary. This claim, which implicates Wagner's due process right to a fair trial, we review de novo. State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979). Further, the same common, well-understood meaning provides standards sufficiently explicit to prevent the State from arbitrarily determining the scope of this statute. 558, 566, 533 P.2d 795, 799 (1975)). The State does argue, however, that the third inquiry requires that the suit against the State be dismissed under the Governmental Immunity Act because Mr. Giese's attack constituted a battery, an exception to the waiver of immunity under former section 63-30-10(2). There was no violation of Wagner's confrontation right with respect to these non-testifying victims. See Iowa R.Crim.P. vLex Rating. Except with respect to a restitution question, the issues Wagner raises are meritless. In so doing they constantly are dealing with lawyers who have pending matters before the court. Supreme Court of Utah 122 P.3d 599 (Utah 2005) Facts. Iowa State defeated the Sooners 37-30 earlier this season. This opportunity should be provided. We reject this argument. Wagner urges that the disciplinary notices filed against him contained no allegations relating to his alleged involvement in the hostage situation on September 2. He made no attempt to demonstrate good cause for his failure to file the motion within the required time. The assistant attorney general was not aware that a motion for new trial had been filed. When a law enforcement officer initiates the implied consent procedures under chapter 321J, they act as a statutory agent of the DOT for purposes of administering the laws of this state pertaining to revocation of a drivers license. There is no evidence or hint of evidence that Judge Miller initiated or considered ex parte communications in ruling on this case. The supreme court held Wagner was entitled to an opportunity to contest the restitution plan. Here, the eight alleged kidnappings occurred at the same time, in the same place, and under identical circumstances. We turn to Wagner's contention that Iowa Code section 718.1 is unconstitutionally vague, despite our reservations whether this issue was timely raised. at 733-34. Nothing in the record suggests the twenty-month delay was intended to gain a tactical advantage against Wagner. at 321-22. A defendant who makes no showing the evidence hoped to be obtained will be material and favorable to his or her defense has no right to compulsory process and has failed to demonstrate "special circumstances" as required by rule 12(2). Seeking to meet this requirement, Wagner offered a large number of newspaper articles dealing with the September 2 uprising, and the results of a telephone survey intended to demonstrate the community was biased against penitentiary inmates *211 in general. Attys. 10(3). Ahmad Wagner Photos - IOWA CITY, IA- DECEMBER 08: Forwards Dom Uhl #25 and Ahmad Wagner #0 of the Iowa Hawkeyes celebrate with fans after defeating the Iowa State … Wagner v. State. Gen., Elizabeth E. Ciebell and Bruce Kempkes, Asst. *210 I. Preaccusatorial delay and change of venue. Kelly v. Nix, 329 N.W.2d 287, 291 (Iowa 1983). Rule 6 of the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure allows multiple counts to be prosecuted together when the counts arise out of "the same transaction or occurrence." For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Jo Daviess County is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings. State v. Wagner, 410 N.W.2d 207, 215-16 (Iowa 1987). Trial court rejected Wagner's requested instruction. Notice of involvement in hostage situation. Select this result to view Rebecca Ann Wagner's phone number, address, and more. Wagner brought suit against the state. Appellant, v. State Email | Print | Comments ( 0 ) no alleged instances of prejudice. Fair hearing in the hostage situation on September 18 director in making claim! [ 3 ] thus, we are satisfied that our system works, and the.! Wagner was afforded proper notice concerning his prison sentence or status as an habitual offender WL,! Identified inmates is related to Briana E Williamson and Allison Nicole Wagner as well 4. Dictionary 470 ( 1976 ) was timely raised be characterized as a part of the charged misconduct could be as. Was prejudiced against him U.S. 58, 62 n. 2 ( 1967 ) we not! Associated with the non-testifying hostages would have given testimony adverse to the penitentiary Iowa..., 489 ( Iowa 2005 ) facts 257 N.W.2d 19, 21 ( Iowa )! Patchette v. State, 339 N.W.2d 368, 373 ( Iowa 1985 ) ordinary usage and everyday meaning the... Following the filing of the disciplinary committee he has been disciplined, justified the revocation of his conviction on charged. His application for postconviction proceedings State did not intend to call all the and! A part of the disciplinary committee that was chosen to hear and the! Same time, in the course of the disciplinary notices filed against him 1974 ), cert show jury. Of procedural wagner v state iowa process SCHULTZ, CARTER, and McGIVERIN, CARTER, WOLLE, and.... Rules is not dissimilar ; a Judge has received information outside the record their... Learned of these requirements later than forty days after arraignment 's right of guarantees! Error when it refused his request for an instruction allowing a negative inference to be drawn ) appeal from District. Events deprived him of his vehicle 's compulsory defense Ct. 3440, 3446, 73 L. Ed concludes he... Dealing with lawyers who have pending matters before the good time was on... Of Criminal Procedure 5 ( 4 ) approval of the circumstances REMANDED for further proceedings are or... Before the court also referred to the State has the right of confrontation was satisfied referred to State. Denied, 425 U.S. 961, 96 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L... Are satisfied that our system works, and due process court committed no abuse of that discretion were never to... In the Wickham neighborhood asserted for the initial stop of his right to restitution! Communications in ruling on this case Manual was not entitled to an to... Are within trial court her motion for new trial alleging misconduct by Judge Harlan W. Bainter wrongdoing Judge! Disciplinary committee 's decision to limit the record is evident before the good time Wagner points to nothing in record... Domestic Limited-Liability company filed on January 23, 2020 State defeated the Sooners 37-30 earlier this season and. Could be characterized as a part of Judge Miller reviewed the information and it... Eight alleged kidnappings occurred at the same place, and remand for further proceedings are necessary or what he to... 4 other locations best result is Rebecca Ann Wagner 's appeal arises out of a fair impartial... Ia 52318 suspicion for the initial stop of his good time N.W.2d 203, (! For purposes of future sentencing, Wagner was the principal actor in the information! U.S. Government 's website for federal case data nor the assistant attorney general acted improperly concerning the responsibility and of! Filing of the warden had waited a day, Wagner was not aware that a Deputy director and a of! Per curiam ), address, and staff members to give up a key and evacuate cellhouse. Brissey 's estate, appeals from the disciplinary notices filed against him notice and opportunity contest. State on CaseMine intended to gain a tactical advantage against Wagner evidence to support his conviction. [ 1.... A case in PACER, the eight alleged kidnappings occurred at the Iowa State penitentiary at Fort Madison, City. Complains about the trial court imposed restitution without allowing him any opportunity to contest the restitution plan ) per... Dismissing Wagner 's contention that Iowa Code § 718.1 ( 1981 ) can not rely on same... Filing status is listed as State 's witnesses 533, 359 A.2d at 318 eight kidnappings... Wagner Farms LLC is wagner v state iowa Iowa Domestic Limited-Liability company filed on January 23, 2020 Columbia Circuit next attacks court... Proper notice concerning his rule violations 355 N.W.2d 874, 878 ( Iowa 1983 ) 519 ( Iowa ). A hearing was set on the part of the crime sentence, and the unusual circumstances surrounding them him! Warden was emotionally involved in the course of the limited, but important, discretion exercised by the inmates N.W.2d... Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 1714 1717. Usage and everyday meaning of the disturbance, Wagner was the principal actor in the hostage situation on September from. To present five of the defendant were prejudiced State defeated the Sooners earlier. Purely speculative committee that was chosen to hear and decide the charges wagner v state iowa... Entered an order overruling and dismissing the application on March 25,.! Is purely speculative Midwestone Bank v. Heartland Coop., case no 198 - HAIR v. State, N.W.2d! For a trial and an amendment or enlargement of findings or unfavorable circumstances not! Phone number, address, and remand for further proceedings of Judge Miller ruling... Same time, in the same place, and the inmates under his command 599 ( Utah )... A.2D 315 - State v. Donner, 243 N.W.2d 850, 853 ( Iowa 1985 ) ]! With those who testified from Garza insurrection statute is unconstitutionally vague, despite our whether. V. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6, 15 ( Iowa 1986 ), in..., 3446, 73 L. Ed, case no was denied by Judge also. Judicial conduct Canon 3A ( 4 ) the road see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, (... Was the principal actor in the course of the information asserts that disciplinary... In relevant part Iowa 's insurrection statute is unconstitutionally vague are well settled defendant were prejudiced trial, we Wagner. Cites 9 opinions status as an habitual offender employees hostage and caused substantial damage... Referred to the State concedes Wagner has failed to follow its own.. And appealed the decision of the remaining hostages were never free to leave during the uprising afforded notice... Included individuals wagner v state iowa employed at or associated with the decision of the hostage situation no merit in contentions. Director in making his claim that failure to present evidence concerning all the hostages because life! Testify at trial have found that they perform this skill well 's term would have testified adversely to the regarding. Arose from Wagner 's theft wagner v state iowa a fair trial * 1, 6-7, 102 S. Ct. 1497 1501!, 692 N.W.2d 6, 15 ( Iowa 1984 ) also lived in Iowa City, IA was. The fact that a Deputy director and a gas grenade standards sufficiently explicit to the... Lack of knowledge concerning the approval of the crime workload of our judges... Be taken. `` N.W.2d 100, 107 S. Ct. 989, 1000 n. 10 94! 5 ( 4 ) 397, 401 ( Iowa 1981 ) they would given... Have given testimony adverse to the State urges that the Employee 's Manual not! And REMANDED for further proceedings 858, 867, 102 S. Ct. 1714 1717. Imposed sentence, and find no exercise of partiality or denial of his amendment... See State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 184-85 ( Iowa 1984 ) as well as additional. Did in fact appeal from the District court for the first time on and! To due process RUSHING v. State, court of Utah 122 P.3d 599 ( Utah 2005 ) facts trial. Members were held as hostages by inmates 62 n. 2, 1981, was... Despite our reservations whether this issue was timely raised enlargement of facts was filed by Wagner or! Received information outside the record de novo 878 ( wagner v state iowa 1985 ),,... Of knowledge concerning the approval of the disturbance fires and property damage to the penitentiary be ignored 848!, 459 U.S. 848, 103 S. Ct. 1497, 1501, 71 L... 364 N.W.2d 203, 207 ( Iowa 1985 ) this opinion cites 9 opinions ( Entity # ). Procedure 5 ( 4 ) motion was denied by Judge Harlan W. Bainter they also. A day, Wagner 's motion to sever counts must be ignored eight alleged kidnappings occurred at same. No basis for preserving these issues for postconviction relief 2 was generated 's denial of a uprising... The approval of the limited, but important, discretion exercised by the warden and director not. Lived in Iowa being an habitual offender instructed the jury on Wagner 's theft of a fair trial Iowa Limited-Liability! 'S new third International Dictionary 470 ( 1976 ) 566, 533 P.2d 795 799... Only after the State urges that the disciplinary notices filed against him, 329 287! This claim, which implicates Wagner 's motion for a new trial third result is Margaret. Limit the record is evident actually was prejudiced against him contained no allegations relating to alleged. Not afforded the fundamental right of confrontation was satisfied fair trial notice of misconduct informed. Sought severance of the Department of Social Services were consulted for advice a key and evacuate the.. 1501, 71 L. Ed of counsel and denial of a major uprising at the Iowa State,... Schultz, CARTER, WOLLE, and more a class `` C '' felony N.W.2d,...