finding the error of using 13 the term “victim” instead of “alleged victim” was not prejudicial because the use was limited to closing arguments and any potential prejudicial effect was mitigated by the district court’s instructions that closing arguments are not evidence
How later courts described this case
- finding the error of using 13 the term “victim” instead of “alleged victim” was not prejudicial because the use was limited to closing arguments and any potential prejudicial effect was mitigated by the district court’s instructions that closing arguments are not evidence
- considering admission of out-of-court statement to explain responsive conduct and finding the defendant was not prejudiced because “the trial court gave a jury instruction limiting the purposes for which the court hearsay testimony could be used. We have held that an instruction limiting the ‘purposes for which the evidence [can] be used’ may serve as ‘an antidote for the danger of prejudice’” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
- providing the example of State v. Tompkins where the officer’s testimony was inadmissible because 20 the officer’s account “went beyond the mere fact that a conversation occurred and instead actually stated what the witness said. . . . [and] did not merely explain the investigation” and instead directly challenged the defense’s argument. (quoting State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 636, 643 (Iowa 2015))
- noting a prosecutor’s alleged miscon- duct was not prejudicial because it “was limited to closing arguments and the district court instructed jurors that ‘[the] summations and closing arguments of 17 counsel are not evidence,’ thus mitigating the . . . prejudicial effect” (alteration in original)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State of Iowa v. Peter Leroy Veal, 930 N.W.2d 293 (2019)
898 N.W.2d 801, 815 (Iowa 2017), modified on other grounds by State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293
The opinion
*830 WIGGINS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I join the majority opinion; however, I feel compelled to write separately on the issues of implicit bias and racial disparity in Iowa. A recent report by The Sentencing Project found 25.8% of Iowa's prison population was black, while blacks made up only 3.1% of Iowa’s population. Ashley Nellis, The Color of Justice: Racial ■ and Ethnic Disparity in State Prisons 16 (2016) [hereinafter Nellis]. The same report found the black to white incarceration ratio in Iowa’s prisons was 11 to 1. Id. at 17. These statistics reveal that Iowa is one of the worst states in the country when it comes to racial disparity regarding.imprisonment. Id. at 16-17. These numbers are shameful, and I believe much of the cause for these alarming statistics is due to implicit bias against blacks in Iowa. 12
I agree with the majority statement, “We strongly encourage district courts- to be proactive about addressing implicit bias.” In furtherance of that encouragement, I would require judges to give an implicit-bias instruction in every case where counsel requests one and implicit bias may haye an effect on a jury. .
■Due to the disgraceful disparity in the punishment and incarceration between blacks and whites, we should not wait for further research and study on the issue of implicit bias and racial disparity. The demand for justice to our black citizens does not allow for further stalling. A defendant and his or her counsel are in the best position to know whether the circumstances of the present case warrant an implicit-bias instruction. A defendant arid his or her counsel are also in the best position to determine whether instructing jurors on implicit bias may lead to a better outcome or not, •
In the future when á defendant requests an implicit-bias instruction and implicit bias may have' an effect on a jury, there is no reason for ⅛⅛ court not to instruct the jury on implicit bias. See Sonnek v. Warren, 522 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Iowa 1994).
Cady, C.J., and Áppel, J., join this special concurrence.
. The same report finds the rates for Hispanic disparity are much different. In 2014, 6,9% of Iowa's prison population was Hispanic, while Hispanics made up 5.5% of Iowa's population, Nellis, at 16. The same report found the Hispanic to white incarceration ratio in Iowa’s prisons was 1.7 to 1. Id. at 17. Although the Hispanic to' white disparity is better than the black to white disparity in Iowa, it could be better.