IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff, v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR BUCHANAN COUNTY, Defendant.
No. 97-2100
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Dec. 23, 1998.
587 N.W.2d 774
Simpson makes clear that he is actually relying on the effective defense theory to prove his alleged due process violation. Even were we to adopt this theory, we conclude Simpson has failed to make a threshold showing that the proffered testimony was clearly exculpatory. Smith, 615 F.2d at 972. At most and taken at face value, the proffered testimony merely implicates Caeser but does not exculpate Simpson of the crime for which he was charged. The common meaning of exculpate is to free one from a charge of guilt or fault. Webster‘s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 676 (Deluxe ed. 1994).
The police found two pipes with crack cocaine burnt residue: one found under the floor mat in the passenger compartment of the vehicle and one thrown from Simpson‘s vehicle. Additionally, the police found “a couple of” push rods in the vehicle and eight to ten twist ends of baggies, scattered about in the vehicle. Testimony revealed that push rods are pieces of thin material that can be used to clean out a crack pipe and are usually found in the vicinity of crack pipes. Testimony also revealed that “baggies” are used to contain crack cocaine and twist ends are used to close the baggies.
The pipe found under the floor mat, the push rods, and the twist ends were more than enough to convict Simpson of possession of a controlled substance. So we cannot say that Caeser‘s proffered testimony was clearly exculpatory. See United States v. Hardrich, 707 F.2d 992, 994 (8th Cir. 1983) (holding that where proffered testimony of two witnesses merely established incriminating evidence of a third party, but did not exonerate the defendant, district court did not err in refusing to grant use immunity to those witnesses who refused to testify without a grant of such immunity).
Moreover, we conclude no reasonable person would believe Caeser‘s proffered testimony. Rather than being “clearly exculpatory,” such testimony borders on “cooperative perjury among law violators,” a policy reason frequently cited for rejecting the effective defense theory.
III. Conclusion.
Because Simpson did not make a threshold showing that Caeser‘s proffered testimony rose to the level of clearly exculpatory evidence, we conclude the district court did not violate Simpson‘s due process rights when it refused to grant Caeser use immunity.
AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David A. Ferree, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Mark Hunacek, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff.
Denny Wilson, Independence, for defendant.
The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the district court‘s order restoring Edward Kayser‘s eligibility for a driver‘s license. The DOT claims the court acted illegally because the statute authorizing the court‘s action,
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The defendant in the underlying criminal case, Edward Kayser, was convicted of third-offense operating while intoxicated (OWI). See
At the time of Kayser‘s license revocation,
After two years from the date of the order for revocation, the defendant may apply to the court for restoration of the defendant‘s eligibility for a motor vehicle license. The application may be granted only if all of the following are shown by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence:....
On October 17, 1997, Kayser filed an application with the district court asking that his eligibility for a driver‘s license be restored. After hearing, the district court, relying on the authority of
The DOT filed a petition for writ of certiorari, claiming the court acted illegally in ordering the restoration of Kayser‘s eligibility for a driver‘s license. We granted the DOT‘S petition and now consider whether the repeal of
II. Scope of Review.
Our review is for errors of law. See Hewitt v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 538 N.W.2d 291, 292 (Iowa 1995). “We will sustain a writ of certiorari where the district court acted beyond its authority or jurisdiction.” Iowa Dep‘t of Transp. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Bremer County, 534 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Iowa 1995).
III. Applicability of Act Repealing Section 321J.4(3)(b).
As previously noted, the district court relied on
A. Right or privilege. Our analysis necessarily starts with an identification of the right or privilege that is accorded by
B. Acquired, accrued or accorded.
The word “acquire” is defined as “to come into possession, control or power of.” Webster‘s Third New International Dictionary 18 (unabr. ed. 1993). The word “accrue” is defined as “to come into existence as an enforceable claim: vest as a right.” Id. at 13. Finally, the word “accord” is defined as “to grant as suitable or proper: render as due ... ALLOW.” Id. at 12. Using the common meaning of these terms, we conclude that one relying on
It is obvious that Kayser did not possess nor had he been granted eligibility for a driver‘s license as of July 1, 1997. In fact, that is the very privilege which he now seeks to acquire in this action. As of July 1, 1997, Kayser merely possessed an expectation that his eligibility would be restored in the future upon his future compliance with the conditions set forth in
Nor, as our prior cases demonstrate, had this privilege accrued prior to July 1, 1997. In Eldridge City Utilities v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 303 N.W.2d 167 (Iowa 1981), we considered whether the right of a city-owned utility to purchase a utility serving annexed territory survived the repeal of the statute providing for such a purchase. In that case the statute stated that a non-franchised public utility serving the annexed territory “shall be purchased at the end of six years ... by the [city‘s utility].” Eldridge, 303 N.W.2d at 169 (quoting
In reaching this conclusion, we first noted the general rule that a repeal of a statute destroys the effectiveness of the statute and the repealed statute “is considered as if it had never existed.” Id. at 169 (quoting C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23.33 (4th ed.1972)); accord Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 23.33, at 424 (5th ed. 1992) (“Except as to proceedings past and closed, the statute is considered as if it had never existed.“). We noted in Eldridge that this rule is moderated, however, by our savings statute,
The same analysis applies here. Kayser‘s privilege to have his license eligibility restored amounted only to an expectation until the two-year period had expired and he had met the four conditions set forth in
Our holding is consistent with the historical distinction between a right/privilege and a mere expectation. In an early case, this court observed that a right “is something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of present laws.” Leach v. Commercial Sav. Bank, 205 Iowa 1154, 1165, 213 N.W. 517, 521 (1927). We quoted from a United States Supreme Court case noting the distinction between a vested right, i.e., one that had accrued, and a right that is merely expectant or contingent:
They are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular person or persons as a present interest. They are expectant when they depend upon the continued existence of the present condition of things until the happening of some future event. They are contingent when they are only to come into existence on an event or condition which may not happen or be performed....
Id. at 1165, 213 N.W. at 522 (quoting Pearsall v. Great N. Ry., 161 U.S. 646, 673, 16 S.Ct. 705, 713, 40 L.Ed. 838, 847 (1896)).
In the present case, it is clear that Kayser‘s privilege to have his eligibility restored had not accrued when
In Thorp v. Casey‘s General Stores, Inc., 446 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1989), and In re Estate of Hoover, 251 N.W.2d 529 (Iowa 1977), we held that the plaintiffs’ causes of action had accrued prior to the repeal of the pertinent statutes. In so holding, we relied on the fact that everything that would establish the plaintiffs’ rights to recover had occurred prior to the repeal of the statutes. Thorp, 446 N.W.2d at 460; Hoover, 251 N.W.2d at 531. All that remained to happen was for the plaintiffs to prove these elements in court. In contrast, in the present case, the “elements” of Kayser‘s “claim“—passage of two years from revocation and meeting the statutory prerequisites—had not yet transpired as of the date
In summary, we hold that the repeal of
IV. Disposition.
The district court acted beyond its authority in restoring Kayser‘s eligibility for a driver‘s license. Therefore, we sustain the writ of certiorari.
WRIT SUSTAINED.
All justices concur except SNELL, J., who concurs specially and CARTER, J., who dissents.
SNELL, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur in the result decided by the majority but respectfully disagree with the analysis by which it is reached. In Iowa Department of Transportation v. Iowa District Court for Scott County, 587 N.W.2d 781 (Iowa 1998), also filed this month, I set out my views in dissent concerning the effect of the legislature‘s repeal of
This case differs from the Scott County case in this way. In the Scott County case, the defendants qualified under the 1995 statute to have their cases heard by the district court, which would then determine if their driver‘s licenses should be restored. That is because the two-year waiting period required by section 321J.4(3)(b) had expired, making them eligible to apply for restoration of their driver‘s licenses. The court might not grant their applications because of failure to prove that the four conditions for restoration had been met, but their right to apply was unaffected by repeal of the statute because it was an accrued substantive right that could not be taken away by the repeal.
In the case at bar, defendant Kayser is not in the same position as the defendants in the Scott County case. Kayser‘s license was revoked on September 29, 1995. Under the statute, Kayser became eligible to apply for license restoration after two years had expired from the date of his license revocation. That date was September 29, 1997. However, before that date, the statute under which Kayser was seeking relief was repealed, effective on July 1, 1997. The July 1, 1997 date of repeal foreclosed Kayser from applying for license restoration because he had not completed the two-year threshold waiting period established by the statute for eligibility.
I adhere to my analysis of these legal issues as set out in my dissent in the Scott County case. Following that reasoning, I would sustain the writ.
CARTER, Justice (dissenting).
I dissent because I believe that, at the time the six-year revocation took place, sec-