State of Iowa v. Kamie Jo Schiebout, 944 N.W.2d 666

Background

Kamie Jo Schiebout (not an authorized signer) took checks from a Ducks Unlimited chapter account and wrote checks totaling $1,256.93; most charged checks were paid by the bank when presented.
Two additional checks she attempted at Schweser’s were dishonored after the account became overdrawn; those two were not among the seven checks the jury considered for the charged theft.
The State prosecuted under Iowa Code § 714.1(6) (theft by check), which requires the person to know the check "will not be paid when presented."
At trial the jury was instructed that “knowledge” meant Schiebout had a conscious awareness the checks would not be paid because she was not an authorized signer; the jury convicted and the district court denied acquittal motions.
The court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and held the State’s evidence was insufficient to prove Schiebout knew the checks would not be paid when presented (lack of authorization alone is insufficient), vacating the conviction and dismissing the charges; the restitution order for jail medical costs was also vacated.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Schiebout)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence on knowledge element under § 714.1(6)	Lack of signature authority supports a reasonable inference she knew checks would not be paid	Lack of authority alone is insufficient; bank paid the charged checks, so no proof she knew they would be dishonored	Reversed: evidence insufficient; lack of authorization without more does not prove she knew checks would not be paid; conviction vacated and case dismissed
Validity of jury instruction equating "knowledge" with being unauthorized signer	Instruction reasonably permitted jurors to infer conscious awareness from lack of authorization	Instruction improperly equated lack of authority with knowing the checks would be dishonored	The Court rejected that lack of authority alone satisfied § 714.1(6)’s knowledge requirement and declined to let that instruction sustain the verdict
Applicability of statutory evidentiary presumptions in § 714.1(6)(a)–(b)	Where drawee refuses payment, presumptions allow inference of knowledge	Presumptions inapplicable because drawee paid the charged checks	Presumptions did not apply; they trigger only when the drawee actually refuses payment
Restitution for detainee medical costs and right to counsel	County sought reimbursement under § 356.7; State later conceded error on procedure	Schiebout argued she was entitled to counsel and ability-to-pay analysis; cannot be ordered absent conviction	With conviction vacated, restitution order vacated; defendant cannot be held under § 356.7 without conviction

Key Cases Cited

State v. James, 310 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa 1981) (discusses mens rea for theft-by-check under predecessor law)
State v. Hogrefe, 557 N.W.2d 871 (Iowa 1996) (clarifies proof of intent/knowledge when issuing checks)
State v. Nall, 894 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 2017) (statutory interpretation and standards for reviewing sufficiency challenges)
State v. Isaac, 756 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2008) (court must apply enacted statutory language, not Model Penal Code language)
State v. Dudley, 766 N.W.2d 606 (Iowa 2009) (restitution procedures require a conviction)
State v. Canal, 773 N.W.2d 528 (Iowa 2009) (unchallenged jury instructions become law of the case for sufficiency review)
State v. Coburn, 244 N.W.2d 560 (Iowa 1976) (knowledge may be proved circumstantially; statutory "make good" notice is evidentiary, not an element)
State v. Rojas-Cardona, 503 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 1993) (knowledge that account was closed supported conviction under theft-by-check theory)
State v. Stevens, 719 N.W.2d 547 (Iowa 2006) (jurors may draw on common knowledge and experience when inferring intent)