# State v. Bair

> Supreme Court of Iowa · February 13, 1985 · 362 N.W.2d 509

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670900

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Charles Raymond BAIR, Appellant; STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Leslie Richard KRUSE, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** February 13, 1985
- **Citations:** 362 N.W.2d 509; 1985 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 967
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carter
- **Judges:** Harris, Carter, McGiverin, Schultz
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670900

## Opinion text

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Noticeably absent from the decision of the court is any discussion of *513 how the misjoinder found to exist in the present ease prejudiced the defendants.
As the majority tacitly concedes, the record would support a finding that the two offenses grew out of a “common scheme or plan.” In order for this court to propose the amendment to rule 6(1), which now permits joint indictment and trial with respect to separate offenses growing out of a “common scheme or plan,” it must have been persuaded that this procedure is not inherently unfair. I concur in that analysis and suggest that, as a result, defendants in the present appeal have only succeeded in showing a procedural irregularity, insufficient to justify reversal.
Ironically, because the joinder rule is a matter of procedure, the amendment to rule 6(1), which occurred after defendants’ trial, will apparently be applicable for purposes of retrial. The purpose of reversal is to permit a retrial of the case free from the error upon which the reversal is based. Where, as here, it is problematic that this purpose can be achieved, I believe we should affirm the judgment in spite of the procedural irregularity.
McGIVERIN and SCHULTZ, JJ., join this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9670900. Public record. Not legal advice.