State v. Link

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Nail

    743 N.W.2d 535 (Iowa 2007)   Cited 48 times
    Recognizing the wide discretion afforded to a sentencing court under section 901.5, which must be read in pari materia with other sentencing provisions found elsewhere in the code

    In light of our recognition of the nature and realities of the legislative process, we have repeatedly emphasized that sentencing provisions in Iowa's criminal code must be read in pan materia with other sentencing provisions found elsewhere in the code. State, 616 N.W.2d at 581; State v. Carstens, 594 N.W.2d 436, 437 (Iowa 1999); State v. Kostman, 585 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Iowa 1998); State v. Daniel, 574 N.W.2d 333, 335 (Iowa 1998); State v. Byers, 456 N.W.2d 917, 919 (Iowa 1990); State v. Link, 341 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1983), superseded by statute as stated in Jenney v. Iowa Dist. CL, 456 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Iowa 1990); State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 397 (Iowa 1979). Through such interpretation, we necessarily operate on the objective assumption that the legislature strives to create a symmetrical and harmonious system of laws. State, 616 N.W.2d at 581; Fitzgerald v. State, 220 Iowa 547, 552, 260 N.W. 681, 683-84 (1935).

  2. State v. Robinson

    618 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 2000)   Cited 44 times
    Explaining void-for-vagueness doctrine requires a criminal statute to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement

    This court has recognized that "we . . . seek a reasonable interpretation and construction which will best effect the purpose of the statute, seeking to avoid absurd results." State v. Link, 341 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 1983) (citations omitted). I find that applying child pornography to the exemption does not create an absurd result for the following reasons.