# State v. Hildebrand

> Supreme Court of Iowa · June 27, 1979 · 280 N.W.2d 393

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9693594

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Dorothy Faye HILDEBRAND, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** June 27, 1979
- **Citations:** 280 N.W.2d 393; 1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 945
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McGIVERIN
- **Judges:** Reynoldson, Uhlen-Hopp, Harris, McCormick, McGiverin
- **Cited by:** 125 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/9693594

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that where a court is required to exercise discretion, “[a]ny such determination has long been recognized as requiring an actual exercise of judgment upon the part of the court” and “[t]o do so necessitates a consideration by the court of the facts and circumstances wh…
- stating that section 321.281, providing punishment for first-offense operating while intoxicated, must be read in pari materia with section 901.5, granting courts the authority to defer judgment, defer sentence or suspend sentence
- noting that “instead of considering the minimal essential [sentencing] factors we consistently have identified, [the sentencing court] impermissibly selected only one . . . attending circumstance which triggered the court’s previously-fixed sentencing policy.”
- holding a sentencing court is not permitted to select only one circumstance to trigger a fixed sentencing policy

## Opinion text

McGIVERIN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the opinion, but feel compelled to write further.
The opinion states the accident is not unimportant or irrelevant as an attending circumstance in sentencing. With that I agree, but the statement does not go far enough.
I believe an accident in which an OMVUI defendant is at fault and which results at least in part from defendant’s driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage can be a very important factor, although not the only factor, in consideration of a proper sentence for the individual defendant. Our OMVUI law was enacted to protect persons using the highways from accidents caused by drinking drivers.
I would not want trial courts to be deterred by the result we reach today from giving appropriate weight to occurrence of an accident and its attendant circumstances when considering a sentence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9693594. Public record. Not legal advice.