State v. Russel

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Overmann

    220 N.W.2d 914 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 20 times
    Explaining that "take-back entrapment" is shown "if an accused produces evidence disclosing the government, through an agent or informer, supplied drugs to defendant, and the government, through an agent or informer, later reappropriates any of those drugs from the accused." If the State fails to come forth with evidence which contradicts either of the above two elements, "then an accused is entitled to a dismissal as a matter of law"

    "* * * apply to the case sub judice, to all cases still appealable or on appeal in which the issue has been properly raised below, and of course to all cases subsequently tried in which a proper record is made in trial court." See also State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974); Everett v. Brewer, 215 N.W.2d 244, 247-248 (Iowa 1974); State v. Nepple, 211 N.W.2d 330, 332-333 (Iowa 1973). Actually, as presented for review, defendant contends trial court erred in failing to tell the jury, by instruction 8, entrapment was established as a matter of law upon the showing that drugs sold to defendant by a government agent were repurchased by the sovereign.

  2. State v. Kyle

    271 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 1978)   Cited 18 times
    Noting that in the prison setting, rational basis analysis "is colored by deference to prison authority in administration of prison matters"

    Therefore, nothing is presented for review in that regard. State v. Waterman, 217 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa 1974); State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974). Instead, he claims the prosecution of the escape case is cruel and unusual punishment in that he is harassed by the present charge and five year sentence while he is already serving a life sentence.

  3. State v. Izzolena

    609 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 2000)   Cited 66 times
    Holding the minimum restitution award of $150,000 required under Iowa Code section 910.3B for felonies resulting in death to another person to not violate the constitutional prohibition against excessive fines when considering the nature of the offense and resulting harm

    The manner in which the amount of a particular fine impacts a particular offender is not the focus of the test. Klawonn, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2000); see also Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 559, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 2776, 125 L.Ed.2d 441, 456 (1993), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 180, 139 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997) (the question is whether the forfeiture was excessive in light of the criminal activity engaged in by the offender); see also State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974) (rejected claim of excessive sentence where possibility of imprisonment until age ninety-six); State v. Van Klaveren, 208 Iowa 867, 870-71, 226 N.W. 81, 83 (1929) (sentence not excessive because it would undermine defendant's health). B. Double Jeopardy.

  4. Pieper v. Harmeyer

    235 N.W.2d 122 (Iowa 1975)   Cited 10 times
    Finding insufficient evidence of recklessness when a driver collided with vehicles stopped at the bottom of a hill even though the driver could not see what was on the other side of the hill as he sped toward and over it

    "Ordinarily, issues not raised in the trial court, including constitutional questions, cannot be effectively asserted the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the constitutionality of a statute may not be considered as a basis for reversal where the question was not raised in the lower court. State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974). Since plaintiff's contention in this respect was not urged in the trial court it presents nothing for review in this court.

  5. State v. Kelly

    224 N.W.2d 456 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 6 times

    We have repeatedly held that ordinarily, matters not raised in the trial court, including constitutional questions, cannot be effectively asserted for the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the constitutionality of a statute may not be considered on appeal where the question was not raised in the lower court. State v. Willis, Iowa, 218 N.W.2d 921, 923; State v. Wisher, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 618, 620; State v. Russell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 and authorities cited in these opinions. Defendant has not properly raised any constitutional challenge to Code section 246.32.

  6. State v. Ritchison

    223 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 55 times
    Holding error preserved where specific evidence sought to be introduced "was abundantly clear" from the record even though no offer of proof was made

    Ordinarily, matters not raised in the trial court, including constitutional questions, cannot be effectively asserted for the first time on appeal. State v. Pardock, 215 N.W.2d 344, 349 (Iowa 1974). Furthermore, the constitutionality of a statute may not be considered on appeal where ruling by the trial court on the constitutionality was not invoked. State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974); State v. Tokatlian, 203 N.W.2d 116, 120 (Iowa 1972) and authorities cited in these opinion. There is no argument defendant did not demur to the information.

  7. State v. Dewey

    220 N.W.2d 629 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 10 times

    II. Defendant-appellant also contends the county attorney's repeated inquiries if the number of defendant's prior convictions was six constituted misconduct. This issue was not raised in the lower court and will not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v. Waterman, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 621, 624; State v. Russell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356. We do not imply however the county attorney was guilty of misconduct.

  8. State v. Summers

    219 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 4 times

    If a sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, this court will interfere only where an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Russell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356; State v. Voshell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 309, 310. The presentence investigation report showed defendant's prior difficulties with the law.

  9. Wolfs v. Challacombe

    218 N.W.2d 564 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 12 times

    Ordinarily, issues not raised in the trial court, including constitutional questions, cannot be effectively asserted the first time on appeal. Furthermore, the constitutionality of a statute may not be considered as a basis for reversal where the question was not raised in the lower court. State v. Russell, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356 (Iowa 1974). Since plaintiff's contention in this respect was not urged in the trial court it presents nothing for review in this court.

  10. State v. Jennings

    219 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1974)   Cited 3 times

    " See also State v. Voshell, Iowa 1974, 216 N.W.2d 309; State v. Russell, Iowa 1974, 216 N.W.2d 355; State v. Stakenburg, Iowa 1974, 215 N.W.2d 265; State v. Carncross, Iowa 1973, 205 N.W.2d 698. Defendant age 20, admitted he broke into the Sabula Fire Station, vandalized it, and stole fire department equipment.