State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas
877 N.W.2d 652
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Defendants (Illinois and Wisconsin residents) allegedly staged a car accident in Chicago and submitted false insurance claims to Sentry/Viking (Wisconsin insurer).
- Sentry claim adjuster (Perren) and investigator (Wolf) who handled and investigated the claims were located in Davenport, Iowa; many investigative contacts were by phone.
- The Davenport adjuster authorized payment on claims after phone conversations with defendants who were unaware the adjuster was in Iowa.
- State charged defendants with multiple counts including ongoing criminal conduct, theft by deception, conspiracy, fraudulent practices, and fraudulent submissions.
- District court dismissed all counts for lack of territorial jurisdiction; Iowa Court of Appeals reversed on phone-call jurisdiction grounds; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- Supreme Court held Iowa had territorial jurisdiction for four of five counts (counts 1, 2, 3, and 5) because the defendants’ out-of-state calls induced an Iowa decisionmaker to authorize payments; affirmed dismissal of one count (fraudulent practice requiring written certification).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution in Iowa violates the Vicinage Clause / Sixth Amendment | State: crime occurred in part in Iowa because defendants’ calls deceived an Iowa-based decisionmaker | Defendants: they never were in Iowa and did not know recipients were in Iowa, so vicinage violated | Held: No vicinage violation — where parts of crime occur in multiple jurisdictions, trial may proceed where any part occurred (Sixth Amendment satisfied) |
| Whether exercise of territorial jurisdiction violates Due Process | State: defendants engaged in malum in se fraud and could reasonably anticipate prosecution somewhere, so due process satisfied | Defendants: prosecution in Iowa is fundamentally unfair because they lacked knowledge their conduct affected Iowa | Held: Due process satisfied — prosecution not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair; defendants assumed risk of prosecution where victims/decisionmakers were located |
| Whether Iowa Code §803.1 authorizes jurisdiction when out-of-state calls induce an Iowa result | State: §803.1 permits prosecution where conduct or result that is element of offense occurs in Iowa (phone calls deceiving Iowa decisionmaker satisfy statute) | Defendants: §803.1 cannot reach them because payments originated in Wisconsin and they didn’t know recipients’ location | Held: §803.1 satisfied — defendants’ calls and the resulting authorization in Davenport constitute conduct/result in Iowa, supporting prosecution for four counts |
| Whether Count 4 (fraudulent practices requiring written certification/false affidavit) is supported | State: alleged scheme supports all charged counts | Defendants: no written false certification or affidavit was made in Iowa | Held: Dismissal of Count 4 affirmed — minutes lack allegation of any false written sworn certification submitted in Iowa |
Key Cases Cited
- Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (establishing the effects doctrine: extraterritorial acts intended to produce and producing detrimental effects in forum justify prosecution)
- State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1994) (interpretation of §803.1 and limits on territorial jurisdiction; body-found presumption in homicide)
- State v. Wagner, 596 N.W.2d 83 (Iowa 1999) (element-by-element approach under §803.1; status vs conduct distinction)
- United States v. Angotti, 105 F.3d 539 (9th Cir.) (venue/prosecution proper where false statements reach and influence the decisionmaker even if speaker did not know decisionmaker’s location)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1999) (where crime consists of distinct parts in different localities, prosecution may proceed where any part occurred)