State v. Ruble

15 Citing cases

  1. State v. Atley

    564 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 1997)   Cited 240 times
    Holding that a state controlled substances statute proscribing knowing possession of psilocybin provides constitutional fair warning that possession of psilocybe mushrooms is illegal

    We find an abuse of discretion only when the party claiming such shows that the discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). . . . We review constitutional issues de novo.

  2. State v. Fox

    491 N.W.2d 527 (Iowa 1992)   Cited 49 times
    Concluding defense was aware of anticipated testimony at time of trial and evidence was not newly discovered simply because witness invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination

    However, unlike some federal courts, this court has required a showing of prejudice to establish a due process violation. See State v. Ivy, 300 N.W.2d 310, 314 (Iowa 1981); State v. Erving, 346 N.W.2d 833, 836-37 (Iowa 1984); State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). In determining whether prejudice has resulted from a prosecutor's intimidating tactics, trial courts are vested with broad discretion.

  3. State v. Krogmann

    804 N.W.2d 518 (Iowa 2011)   Cited 86 times
    Holding a one-page resistance that stated there was no legal basis for the State's actions did not properly preserve error with respect to the defendant's constitutional claims

    Based on the exchange quoted above, the district court had no reason to believe that Krogmann wanted anything further done with respect to the prosecutor's improper question. Furthermore, to prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show both the misconduct and resulting prejudice. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). We consider:

  4. State v. Vanover

    559 N.W.2d 618 (Iowa 1997)   Cited 57 times
    Holding a district court's statement comparing the amount of time the defendant would likely serve, given parole considerations, under the defendant's sentencing proposal to the amount of time he would serve under the sentence imposed by the court did not "interfere with [the defendant's] parole eligibility"

    We find an abuse of discretion only when the party claiming such shows that the discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). Vanover raises a constitutional issue.

  5. State v. Anderson

    448 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 1989)   Cited 70 times
    Affirming denial of new trial motion where juror was uninfluenced by the comments of the outsider and the other jurors were unaware of the comments until the verdict was reached

    Trial courts are vested with broad authority to determine whether prejudice actually results from misconduct. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). Appellate courts will overturn a trial court's ruling only upon finding an abuse of discretion.

  6. State v. Barrett

    445 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1989)   Cited 26 times
    Explaining district court may participate in voir dire to determine a juror's state of mind

    To prevail on this assignment defendant must show both the misconduct and that he was prejudiced by it. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). It is also a discretionary ruling. Id.

  7. State v. Meyers

    426 N.W.2d 614 (Iowa 1988)   Cited 14 times
    In Meyers, our holding relied upon the rule articulated in State v. Snyder, 223 N.W.2d 217 (Iowa 1974), that an instruction by the court to the jury in the absence of the criminal defendant and defense counsel "gives rise to a presumption of prejudice necessitating reversal unless the record affirmatively shows the instruction had no influence on the jury's verdict prejudicial to the defendant."

    To prevail on an accusation of prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must prove both misconduct and resulting prejudice. State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). On direct exam, the prosecutor did not ask the stepdaughter questions about specific dates or specific recollections to which she had referred in her earlier deposition.

  8. State v. McGonigle

    401 N.W.2d 39 (Iowa 1987)   Cited 16 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion where the court instructed the jury to ignore the improper testimony

    We uniformly condemn such tactics. See State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1985); State v. Epps, 316 N.W.2d 691, 695 (Iowa 1982); State v. Ivy, 300 N.W.2d 310, 314 (Iowa 1981). However, evidence an agreement to testify was motivated in part from fear of prosecution does not mandate exclusion of the testimony as inherently suspect or require reversal of a conviction.

  9. In re Adams

    No. 15-1539 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017)

    "An abuse of discretion appears only when it was 'exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.'" State v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 33 (Iowa 1989) (quoting State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985)). This court grants the district court "broad discretion in determining whether to grant a mistrial" in "recognition of the trial court's better position to appraise the situation in the context of the full trial."

  10. Sempek v. State

    No. 1-696 / 10-0586 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    "To prevail on a matter of prosecutorial misconduct, [Sempek] must show both the misconduct and that he was prejudiced by it." State v. Ruble, 372 N.W.2d 216, 218 (Iowa 1985). A prosecutor's misconduct does not warrant relief unless the conduct was so "prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial."