# State of Iowa v. Jonas Dorian Neiderbach

> Supreme Court of Iowa · August 23, 2013 · 836 N.W.2d 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9880262

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Christopher Craig THOMPSON, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** August 23, 2013
- **Citations:** 836 N.W.2d 470; 2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 97; 2013 WL 4483527
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cady
- **Judges:** Waterman, Cady, Appel, Wiggins, Hecht
- **Cited by:** 123 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/9880262

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”
- stating “’[l]esser offenses must be submitted to the jury as included within the charged offense if but only if they meet both the appropriate legal and factual tests’” (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9880262. Public record. Not legal advice.