State of Iowa v. Richard Lloyd Tate
16-1929
| Iowa Ct. App. | Sep 13, 2017Background
- Tate was charged with operating while intoxicated on July 28, 2016.
- On September 9 Tate filed for a court-appointed investigator (naming a specific PI and fee limit) to obtain witness statements and exculpatory information; an unreported hearing occurred Sept. 20 and the court denied the motion with no explanation.
- On September 28 Tate filed a second application (seeking an investigator and an expert) and requested the application be considered ex parte and under seal, citing State v. Dahl; the court denied it the same day without a resistance from the State or a hearing.
- Tate filed motions to amend/reconsider and to submit an ex parte offer of proof; those motions were summarily denied the next day, again with no record of state resistance or explanatory findings.
- Tate sought discretionary review; the Court of Appeals considered whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the second application without following the Dahl ex parte protocol and reversed and remanded for compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by denying Tate's application for a court-appointed investigator and expert without an ex parte hearing under Dahl | State: Tate did not meet Dahl’s “some merit” threshold, so no ex parte hearing was required | Tate: Dahl requires an ex parte hearing when application may have some merit and lacks detail; district court denied without following that protocol | Court: Reversed — district court abused its discretion by failing to follow Dahl and must hold ex parte hearing/proceed per Dahl |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dahl, 874 N.W.2d 348 (Iowa 2016) (establishes protocol requiring ex parte hearing when indigent defendant's application for a private investigator may have some merit but lacks adequate information)
- Johnson v. State, 860 N.W.2d 913 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for appointment of state-funded investigators/experts)
- State v. Barker, 564 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (discusses trial court discretion in appointing investigators/experts)