State of Iowa v. Eddie Tipton
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 73
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Dec. 23, 2010: a Hot Lotto ticket purchased in Des Moines won a $16.5M jackpot; ticket tracking and store video/audio recorded the purchase. The ticket stayed with lottery officials after a trust claimed it Dec. 29, 2011 and later withdrew the claim Jan. 26, 2012.
- Investigators learned of a decoy claimant (Phillip Johnston) Nov. 2011; DCI later interviewed Johnston (Aug. 2013) and unsuccessfully tried to interview Texas contacts (June 2014).
- MUSL employee Eddie Tipton (RNG developer) had access to the RNG machines Nov. 20, 2010; evidence showed camera gaps and that older RNG machines were later wiped. Tipton was ineligible to collect winnings as a lottery employee.
- DCI released edited store video/audio Oct. 2014; a tip from Maine identified Tipton. Tipton was interviewed Nov. 7, 2014 and charged Jan. 15, 2015 with (Count I) fraudulent passing/attempted redeeming (Iowa Code §99G.36(1)) and (Count II) tampering/influencing the drawing (Iowa Code §99G.36(2)).
- Trial: jury convicted on both counts; Tipton appealed arguing statute-of-limitations bar, insufficiency of evidence, erroneous evidentiary rulings, and defective jury instructions.
- Supreme Court holding: vacated court of appeals; affirmed in part and reversed in part — Count II (tampering) dismissed as time-barred (no diligence to trigger fraud-extension); Count I (redeeming) vacated and remanded because the instruction submitted time-barred alternatives and jury unanimity issues require retrial on the timely redeeming theory.
Issues
| Issue | Tipton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraudulently passing/redeeming is a "continuing offense" under §802.7 | Not a continuing offense; discrete acts completed by latest redemption attempts (Dec. 29, 2011) so prosecution (Jan. 15, 2015) is untimely | It was a series of acts culminating in Jan. 17, 2012 (meeting to redeem), so limitations run from last act | Not a continuing offense; continuing-offense exception does not apply to passing/redeeming |
| Whether tampering (§99G.36(2)) is a continuing offense or saved by reliance on later redeeming acts | Tampering completed by Nov. 20, 2010; limitations expired | Tampering’s effects and related redemption efforts extend the actionable period to Jan. 17, 2012 | Tampering is not a continuing offense; ongoing redemption efforts do not extend limitations for a discrete tampering act — but separate one-year fraud extension analysis applies |
| Whether Iowa Code §802.5 (one-year fraud extension) was triggered earlier (inquiry notice) or from identity discovery (probable cause) and whether the State exercised due diligence | Statute triggered by inquiry notice (Nov/Dec 2011); State delayed and was not diligent, so extension doesn’t save charges | The one-year fraud extension runs from discovery of the offense (and, per State, when probable cause against a specific suspect exists — Oct. 2014 for Tipton); withholding video was reasonable investigative practice | For Count I (redeeming): fraud-extension not required because State had probable cause by Jan. 2012 as to fraudulent redeeming; for Count II (tampering): State failed to show due diligence — extension tolled only if State exercised reasonable diligence, which it did not, so tampering charge dismissed |
| Preclusion of defense evidence that 2011–2012 RNG machines showed no tampering | Defense: post-2010 RNG results are probative to show no tampering occurred | State: later machines would not reflect a self‑destructing rootkit used on 2010 machines; evidence is irrelevant | Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion — lack of tampering on later machines was too attenuated to be relevant to the discrete 2010 tampering allegation |
| Admission of evidence about investigative course (Johnston cooperation; Sonfield/Rhodes unavailability) | Such evidence is prejudicial, speculative and invites impermissible inference | Evidence is relevant to show Johnston was not the mastermind and that others avoided investigators; probative value > prejudice | Admission not reversible error: testimony was relevant and not unduly prejudicial under Iowa R. Evid. 5.403 |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support fraudulent redeeming (surviving theory) | Challenges identification and inferences tying Tipton to tampering/plan | State: circumstantial proof (voice ID, access, expertise, camera gaps, wiped machines) suffices | There is substantial evidence to submit the redeeming theory (based on Shaw’s Jan. 17, 2012 redemption efforts) to a jury; however, instructional errors require remand for retrial on that theory |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Walden, 870 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 2015) (purposes and interpretation of statutes of limitations)
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1970) (narrow continuing-offense doctrine; two-prong test)
- State v. Wilson, 573 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 1998) (construction and triggering of §802.5 fraud-extension; probable cause + due diligence test)
- State v. Francois, 577 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1998) (narrow application of continuing-offense doctrine)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause requires only a fair probability under totality of circumstances)
- Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1957) (limits on using subsequent acts to extend limitations for discrete offenses)