State of Iowa v. Justin Robert Derby, 800 N.W.2d 52

Derby was charged with third-degree burglary, five forgery counts, and escape from custody; he was named a habitual offender with two prior felonies referenced in the information.
On the morning of trial, Derby moved in limine to exclude admission of his prior convictions; the district court partially granted and limited impeachment to certain listed convictions but allowed broader impeachment if he testified.
Derby chose not to testify after the in limine ruling, and the jury convicted him; he was sentenced to concurrent fifteen-year terms with three-year minimums and restitution.
The Court of Appeals affirmed that Derby failed to preserve error because he did not testify, prompting Supreme Court review to evaluate Brown’s continuing vitality.
Desire to overturn Brown is weighed against Daly’s reasoning and other jurisdictions’ approaches, with the Court ultimately affirming Brown and Derby’s convictions.
The Court held Brown controls preservation of error for Rule 5.609 impeachment when the defendant does not testify, and declined to overrule Brown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of error for in limine ruling on impeaching prior convictions	Derby argues Daly undermines Brown.	Brown should be overruled; Daly supports this.	Brown controls; Daly not overruling Brown.
Effect of defendant’s failure to testify on preservation rule	Non-testifying defendant should not be barred from appealing in limine ruling.	Impeachment ruling review requires defendant to testify per Luce/Brown.	Brown requirement remains applicable; non-testifying defendant cannot preemptively appeal.
Impact of Daly and cross-jurisdictional decisions on Brown's vitality	Daly and other jurisdictions undermine Brown.	Daly harmonizes with Luce and should modify Brown.	Brown remains viable; Daly does not require overruling Brown.

State v. Brown, 569 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 1997) (defendant must testify to preserve challenge to impeachment ruling)
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1984) (defendant must testify to preserve error for in limine rulings)
Daly v. Daly, 623 N.W.2d 799 (Iowa 2001) (reconsiders Brown; permits or rejects overturning Brown depending on context)
Miller, 229 N.W.2d 762 (Iowa 1975) (definite pretrial ruling on admissibility waives need to reobject at trial)
State v. Jones, 271 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa 1978) (defendant may testify and preserve error when pretrial ruling definite)
Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753 (U.S. 2000) (affirms that disclosure on direct examination affects review)