From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bergstrom

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Mar 12, 2014
847 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13–0144.

2014-03-12

STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Cari Jo BERGSTROM, Defendant–Appellant.


But without the additional paragraph of the uniform instruction, the defense was not able to support its theory Bergstrom did not know Carney's intent. The absence of the key language allowed the jury to convict without finding that on December 23, either Bergstrom personally possessed the specific intent to permanently deprive Wal–Mart of the merchandise when she aided and abetted Carney in taking the games or Bergstrom had knowledge Carney had the specific intent to permanently deprive. The full instruction would have offered the jurors clear guidance regarding the State's burden to prove specific intent in an aiding-and-abetting scenario involving theft. Because the issue of Bergstrom's specific intent was “vital” to her defense to the aiding-and-abetting theft charge, her counsel's failure to object to its omission is a breach of duty resulting in prejudice. See State v. Goff, 342 N.W.2d 830, 838 (Iowa 1983).


Summaries of

State v. Bergstrom

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Mar 12, 2014
847 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)
Case details for

State v. Bergstrom

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Cari Jo BERGSTROM…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Date published: Mar 12, 2014

Citations

847 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)