recognizing some other jurisdictions had held words conveying information could provide a sufficient basis for serious provocation without broadening serious provocation under Iowa law in that manner
How later courts described this case
- recognizing some other jurisdictions had held words conveying information could provide a sufficient basis for serious provocation without broadening serious provocation under Iowa law in that manner
- finding the defendant failed to make the necessary showing to gain access to the alleged victim’s records because he offered “no evidence showing a nexus between the issues at trial and the mental health treatment received by [the alleged victim]”
- finding the decedent’s “actions in slapping [the defendant] and insulting him with obscene gestures fell short of the objectively serious provocation required to submit a voluntary manslaughter instruction”
- finding the legislature’s purpose in adopting section 622.10(4) was to “restore[] protection for the confidentiality of counseling records while also protecting the due process rights of defendants”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CADY, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the majority opinion, but write separately to express my view that the statutory standard for judicial review of confidential records under Iowa Code section 622.10(4) (Supp.2011) should be given its definition through the application of facts on a case-by-case basis. As this case and State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 220-43 , 2013 WL 4483525 (Iowa 2013), illustrate, the facts are what should breathe meaning into the “reasonable probability” standard, and this standard *492 will continue to gain greater clarity in the future as additional cases continue to give it shape.