State of Iowa v. John Robert Hoyman
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 52
| Iowa | 2015Background
- John Hoyman was Indianola city attorney (part-time) who billed the city monthly (retainer + hourly items); over time he listed inaccurate names and billed for trials that did not occur.
- DCI investigation compared invoices to court calendars; Hoyman admitted fabricating names and billing for non‑existent trials but claimed he did not overbill overall and the city tolerated sloppy records.
- State charged Hoyman with first‑degree fraudulent practice (Iowa Code § 714.8(4), § 714.14 aggregation theory), first‑degree theft, and felonious misconduct; theft acquitted, misconduct dismissed, jury convicted on first‑degree fraudulent practice.
- Trial instructions required only that Hoyman made entries in public records and knew them to be “false”; instructions on degree used the term “involved” and referenced aggregation without explaining that each aggregated act must have resulted in “obtaining” money/property.
- Hoyman appealed arguing (1) the fraudulent‑practice instruction omitted an intent‑to‑deceive element, (2) degree/aggregation instructions failed to require proof he obtained money/property on each aggregated act, and (3) the trial judge should have recused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hoyman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 714.8(4) requires intent to deceive (beyond knowledge that an entry is false) | Statute says ‘‘knowing the same to be false’’ and other subsections expressly require intent to defraud; expressio unius means intent to deceive is not required | "False" implies deception; conviction should require proof defendant intended to mislead the record’s recipient | Court held intent to deceive is an element: "false" under § 714.8(4) must be read to include intent to deceive; omission requires new trial |
| Whether degree determination under aggregation (§ 714.14) requires proof defendant ‘‘obtained’’ money or property on each act being aggregated | Instructions tracked statute language; degree depends on value "involved" and McSorley supports "involved" interpretation | Pre‑2014 § 714.14 used "obtained"; aggregation requires proof defendant obtained money/property on each occasion aggregated | Court held under pre‑2014 law the State must prove the defendant obtained money/property by each act being aggregated; instructions were misleading and required clarification on remand |
| Whether jury instructions (marshaling and degree instructions) were legally adequate | Instructions followed statutory language and prior case law (McSorley/Osborn) | Instructions failed to define "false" as deceit and were internally inconsistent regarding "obtained" vs "involved"; risk jury convicted on theory not proven | Court found instructions erroneous and potentially prejudicial; reversal and new trial ordered |
| Whether the presiding judge should have recused | Trial court denied recusal; State did not argue error on this point on appeal | Hoyman asserted appearance issue warranted recusal | Supreme Court did not decide recusal claim; exercised supervisory power to order a different judge on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Osborn, 368 N.W.2d 68 (Iowa 1985) (fraudulent‑practice subsections vary; not all require intent to defraud)
- State v. McSorley, 549 N.W.2d 807 (Iowa 1996) (interpreting § 714.8(4) and discussing value "involved"; did not resolve aggregation issue)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) (distinguishes deceit from defraud; defraud commonly involves depriving property)
- State v. Groff, 323 N.W.2d 204 (Iowa 1982) (interpreting "false" affidavit statement as one that misleads)
- State v. Soboroff, 798 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2011) (instructions must define terms to limit scope of criminal statutes)
- United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) (criminalizing mere falsity can raise First Amendment concerns; supports limiting false‑statement crimes)
- State v. Pearson, 804 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2011) (omission of an element from an instruction requires reversal)
- State v. Schuler, 774 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2009) (jury may not convict without finding every element; erroneous instruction necessitates new trial)