State v. Wall

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Wall

240 N.W.2d 640

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedMarch 17, 1976

DocketNo. 58169

StatusPublished

This text of 240 N.W.2d 640 (State v. Wall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Wall, 240 N.W.2d 640 (iowa 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

UHLENHOPP, Justice

(dissenting).

I think the record shows defendant understood the nature of the charge. The court asked defendant if he understood the State had to prove that he uttered the check, that he did so with intent to defraud,, and that he achieved some portion of his result of defrauding. Defendant responded affirmatively.

The court thus stated the heart of the offense, or the “nature” of it. I do not understand that a court must mechanically tick off each element of the offense as though the court were instructing a jury. State v. Hackett, 201 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa) (“discussion of each essential element of the crime charged was not necessary”). We have said that substantial compliance, rather than a ritualistic formula, is required. Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711 (Iowa); Michels v. Brewer, 211 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa).

I think the district court met the requirement. I would affirm.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UHLENHOPP, Justice

(dissenting).

I think the record shows defendant understood the nature of the charge. The court asked defendant if he understood the State had to prove that he uttered the check, that he did so with intent to defraud,, and that he achieved some portion of his result of defrauding. Defendant responded affirmatively.

The court thus stated the heart of the offense, or the “nature” of it. I do not understand that a court must mechanically tick off each element of the offense as though the court were instructing a jury. State v. Hackett, 201 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa) (“discussion of each essential element of the crime charged was not necessary”). We have said that substantial compliance, rather than a ritualistic formula, is required. Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711 (Iowa); Michels v. Brewer, 211 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa).

I think the district court met the requirement. I would affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W.2d 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wall-iowa-1976.

Opinion

I think the district court met the requirement. I would affirm.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack