*1
Latino,
using
can
for
employer,
prosecuted
1256. That
she
be
F.3d at
Ga.
consideration,
consideration,
false
to cash her
only
that
that same
identification
addi
“layer[ing]
from
prevented
paycheck
the states
bank. When
employer’s
La
atop
Ga.
penalties
law.”
diaphanous
tional
federal
court decision rests on such
1267;
tino,
Del
see also Valle
691 F.3d
distinction,
ques-
is another reason
Inc.,
is not
Layering
monly parallel state and see respectfully dissent. In covering misconduct. nal the same laws case, of laws are both sets typical JJ., join Zager, Waterman equally enforceable.
dissent. Conclusion.
IV. of defense representations
I accept Martha Martinez
counsel that defendant to this brought
was born Mexico and parents elev-
country by when she was her repre- I accept the further years
en old. coun- that she has lived in this
sentations twenty years, just last wants try for the Iowa, Appellee, STATE meet, to make ends and would work here Mexico her home. not consider to all majority’s ruling apply But the will GREEN, Appellant. John David use false identi-
unauthorized aliens who state, they in this are ty to work whether No. 15-0871 as An not. sympathetic as Martinez Supreme Court Iowa. working alien under unauthorized who up avoid or cover paying an alias to taxes Filed June history reap will the benefit also time, today’s an decision. At the same just sympathet- citizen American who is as today’s
ic as will not Martinez benefit job pick
decision. Our should not be law apply
winners losers but to federal by given to us state law Congress
as by assembly.9 to us given general
as irony in by noting
I want close
today’s ruling. majority, to the According preempts com- criminal fraud
federal law
mitted unauthorized alien purpose is to obtain
where of the fraud Hence, cannot be
work. while Martinez for Iowa identi-
prosecuted using her false get an Iowa
fication hired herself view, my using attorney. any response to our I will leave also should not be opinions platform criticizing county county attorney to the himself. as a criticism *3 Smith, Appellate disappeared Mark C. Defend- from the area without notice. A, withdrawal) er, (until Joseph Fraioli Police were mail began alerted after Nye, Appellate J. Assistant Melinda accumulate in the mailbox his house and Defender, for appellant. stopped paying he utility his bills. Police Miller, handwritten General, found note attached to the Attorney Thomas J. D. back Bridget Douglas A. Chambers and door house. Foster’s The note Hammerand, General, Attorneys Assistant gone indicated he had to Florida for the for appellee. winter spring. and would return in the A phone on the number note was the number
CADY, Chief Justice. resort, of a Florida but the resort had no case, In this we consider the *4 result, record of police Foster. As en- I, under article section 10 of the Nothing tered and searched the home. Constitution. also consider the We suspicious, except looked Foster’s clothes of in- jury court’s use a malice-inference personal belongings not had been re- struction. The district court John held from moved the home. Green coun- David did have a After Foster to return to his failed sel he under the Iowa Constitution when in voluntarily participated spring, police in house continued to noncustodial police of supervision investigate interview under the disappearance. They his attorney, county though an Iowa even neighbors from learned others that a investigation State’s homicide had then staying man had been Foster. The with on primary focused as suspect. Green man investiga- was described as The tall. The district also jury court instructed the tion, however, years led no further. Two that it could infer Green acted with malice passed with no answers or information. aforethought from his of use a baseball dead, subsequently presumed Foster was bat, despite objection that Green’s he did and his house was sold. bring the fatal bat encounter. of new the home The owner discovered The of appeals court affirmed the district decomposed body pile errors, buried under finding court on both the claimed in debris the basement. The state apply article section 10 to the medical could not preaecusation stage body a criminal as A investi- examiner identified the Foster. gation, jury and the could infer malice investigation renewed law enforcement aforethought the intentional use of a eventually stayed located the man had who deadly weapon. conclude the level prior disappearance. with Foster his His prosecutorial involvement at the time Green, police name was John David a prosecution the interview did not create Jacksonville, camper him in located near trigger would Florida. counsel under article section 10. We County police of- attorney, The Sac two could properly further conclude ficers, agent Depart- from the Iowa aforethought infer malice from Green’s Investigation ment Criminal traveled Therefore, weapon. deadly use of approached They Green at his Florida. appeals. affirm the decision the court agreed camper. accompany them Green Background I. Factual and Proceed- nearby police to a station for an interview. ings. Green was he was not under arrest told in- free to He was not Mark and was leave. Foster lived a one-bedroom City. seemingly rights prior Sac he his Miranda house formed the State he claimed appeal, to this or told of nent during the interview any time violation of his obtained his confession right to counsel. his to counsel. Green asserted in an un- was conducted The interview time attached right to counsel had station. Green room the locked ef- the case had interview because of the couch, offi- and law enforcement sat on a investigation from an fectively transformed county attorney The on chairs. cers sat active role into a based room, but watched in the interview was not attorney during the inter- county of the Multiple in the station. from another room mo- district court overruled view. The interview, one throughout the times tion. room to the interview leave officers would During county attorney. trial, the entire consult State introduced At consultations, county attorney these also used The as evidence. interview specific to ask officers direct cross-ex- would of the interview portions The interview was recorded. questions. closing argu- amination Green ments. killing eventually confessed had an alterca- the two men Koster after that an examiner testified medical City evening home one tion in Sac Koster’s body the cause autopsy of Koster’s showed *5 upset Koster became 2009. Green said in with Green’s ver- was consistent of death by fight striking him started a with and examiner The medical sion the events. During fight, the him with a baseball bat. approxi- taken it would have also testified a and then the fell onto table the two asphyxiate person to mately two minutes Green, the struggling over bat. ground, neck with a applying pressure to the Koster, gained larger in size than much testified he acted straight object. Green against the bat Kost- pressed control and self-defense. longer no he could er’s throat until jury, instructed the The district court it there Koster held until breathe. Green person that if a had objection, over Green’s died. and used opportunity an deliberate body in wrapped Koster’s then Green result- dangerous weapon another it in the basement placed and
blankets death, weap- may infer “the ing jury the body covered the with cat home. He the malice, malice afore- on was used with it, variety of piled a items over and litter specific intent thought, premeditation, old, heavy He including an water heater. also instructed to kill.” The district court table next up the broken propped dangerous weapon was jury that a then Green cleaned pile debris. way to indi- actually used instrument door, house, note to the back attached to inflict death “the intended cate user left town. capable so used is injury, and when serious inflicting death.” initially re- officers Law enforcement after this con- camper his turned Green of murder jury guilty found Green county fession, him after but arrested so, doing jury degree. in the second arrest warrant. He attorney obtained Green suffocated Koster found charged Iowa with was returned aforethought. with malice justification and first-degree murder. See Code to an court sentenced Green The district 707.1, §§ .2 fifty years sentence indeterminate minimum term of incarcera- mandatory trial, to suppress moved Prior to Green years. thirty-five tion of Perti- in Florida. the interview with appealed two claims of Green and raised “determine the challenged whether in- First, his he confession was struction accurately error. claimed the law states and is of his supported by obtained violation substantial evidence.” State Second, Hanes, (Iowa 2010). under Iowa Constitution. he 790 N.W.2d claimed that instruction on jury III. Error Preservation.
inference definition of malice and dangerous weapon improper were since preserved on his Green error article was no introduced there at trial challenge by citing section 10 provision physical that Green initiated the alterca- suppress, in his motion to arguing its inde tion took the bat Green interpretation from pendent the Sixth altercation. Amendment suppression hear ing, ruling obtaining a the dis
We transferred court of court See trict issue. State v. Gas appeals. appeals The court of affirmed the kins, (Iowa 2015). 866 N.W.2d judgment granted and sentence. We fur- preserved also on his challenge error ther review. objecting them, instructions II.Standard of Review. identifying authority objection, his obtaining ruling. Ambrose, State v. challenges “When a defendant (Iowa State v. a motion sup district court’s denial of Overmann, upon based press deprivation a state 1974). right, or federal our constitutional stan Brown, dard review is de novo.” Analysis. IV. (Iowa 2017). lookWe *6 Right I, A. The to the Counsel. Article to entire record “make ‘an and inde section 10 of the Iowa Constitution identi- evaluation of pendent totality the of the ” fies rights the “the accused” “all (quoting circumstances.’ In re Prop. Id. prosecutions, Pardee, 384, criminal and cases involv- Seized N.W.2d 390 872 life, (Iowa 2015)). ing liberty the matters, of an On give factual individual.” we Const, I, § court, art. 10. The to enumerated deference but we trial are rights are by its findings. bound Id. to speedy public by and trial impar- Similarly, when instruc jury; tial to of the be informed accusa- implicates
tion right, a constitutional our him, against copy tions to have a of the Becker, review is de v. novo. See State 818 demanded; same when to be confronted 135, (Iowa 2012), 140-41 N.W.2d overruled him; against with the witnesses to have grounds on other Alcala v. by Marriott witnesses; compulsory process for his Int’l, Inc., 699, (Iowa 880 708 n.3 and, to have the assistance counsel. 2016). If the does implicate instruction Id. right, a constitutional review the chal we lenge for correction of errors at right law. See at issue this case is the Alcala, 880 N.W.2d at On 707-08. review assistance in criminal prosecu- counsel law, for correction of errors tion.1 right are claims the attached to J., origin We por pel, dissenting). discussed the general “cases" We reaffirm the I, Senn, 10 proposition tion article section in State v. that this textual difference indi 1, (Iowa 2016); right 12-16 id. at 41- cates broader counsel under the J., (Wiggins, dissenting); (Ap 47 id. at Iowa Constitution its 65-68 than federal counter- 776 412, 468, 1135, 1166, enough 106 89 U.S. prearrest interview because S.Ct. (1986) (Stevens, J., 410 dissent-
prosecutorial forces of the state had been L.Ed.2d
“indispensable
to the fair
ing),
to make him “the
ad-
committed
him
system
adversary
of our
make the interview
ministration
accused”
Williams,
equivalent
prose-
justice,”
430
functional
a “criminal
criminal
Brewer
Id,
387, 398,
1232, 1239,
only on the
51
relies
97
The claim
U.S.
S.Ct.
cution[
counsel,
al-
right
provid-
section 10
424
founders
article
L.Ed.2d
Our
light
system
only
concepts
it utilizes
is balanced
though
because the
ed
privilege against
self-in-
the state
the accused have
found within
when both
professional
counsel.
crimination.2
assistance
purpose
of the
coun-
While
It
of con
principle
is a “universal
pro-
both
applies
pretrial
sel
trial and
provision
stitutional
law” that
ceedings,
beyond,
text of article
even
counsel
accused is
defense
applies
prosecu-
section
to “criminal
any
Powell v.
“essential
fair trial.”
to “the
must de-
tions” and
accused.”
64,
Alabama,
45,
55,
287 U.S.
53 S.Ct.
if
to coun-
cide
this text extends the
(1932) (first
quoting
Coo
L.Ed.
just prior
sel
interview conducted
(8th
Constitutional
ley’s
Limitations 700
filing
complaint
aof
issuance
and the
ed.);
Chin
quoting
and then
Ex Parte
of an arrest warrant.
You,
(D.
Loy
223 F.
Mass.
right to counsel under
applying the
Peterson,
1915)); see also
Consti
Amendment to the U.S.
Sixth
(Iowa
2003) (noting the
tution,
Supreme
Court has held that
guarantee of
“main
constitutional
criminal
af
commences
crimi
tains
fair administration of
our
adversary judicial
ter “the initiation of
justice system
assuring aid to the
nal
proceedings—whether by way of
govern
accused when confronted
charge, preliminary hearing,
formal
indict
adversary”).
ment
This is a basic
Rothgery
ment,
information,
arraignment.”
con
prominent goal,
broadly
we have
Gillespie County,
.
554 U.S.
v
it. See
strued
achieve
2578, 2583,
S.Ct.
171 L.Ed.2d
N.W,2d
Newsom,
(2008)
Gouveia,
(quoting
United States
1987) (“We
provi
broadly construe this
*7
188,
2292, 2297,
180,
104
U.S.
81
467
S.Ct.
to
its
which was
purpose,
sion
effectuate
(1984)).
standard,
146
this
L.Ed.2d
Under
po
to correct the
the
imbalance between
right
had no
to
The inter
Green
counsel.
powerful
sition of the
the
accused and
any
before
of these formal
view occurred
investiga
of
forces
the State in criminal
a
events.
tion.”).
short,
right
In
the constitutional
I,
provides
to
to the under
Like article
section
the
of the
counsel
“an aid
text
standing
protection
right
of
consti
to counsel under the Sixth Amend-
[other]
Burbine,
to
rights,”
applies
475 ment
“the
in
“crimi-
tutional
Moran
accused”
all
see,
part,
e.g.,
prosecution
Young,
State
must be a
the
Consti-
before
Iowa
counsel,
(Iowa 2015) (concluding
"cases”
the
provide
right
tution will
him a
to
language supports
right
cer
prosecutions
is not
tain
misdemeanor
argu-
pursue
Green
2.
does
alternative
Constitution),
provided by the
but find
U.S.
I,
ments
article
8 or 9
under
sections
on
argument
by fo
properly resolved
Green’s
is
appeal.
We address
the
his claim
under
prosecution[
cusing
]”
on when a "criminal
I,
right
provided by
to counsel
article
section
Const,
I,
begins.
§
art.
10.
State’s
There
10.
"case”
Green is a criminal one.
However,
prosecutions.”
applying
nal
participation by
prosecutor.
nificant
the
As
such,
to our
the Sixth Amendment
state criminal
prosecu-
we have held that a criminal
procedure, we have held
the criminal
tion for
of
purposes
right
the
coun-
the
prosecution required
by the text
the
just begin,
sel does
filing
with the
once a complaint
clause exists
has been
the .trial
information
other
formal
Jackson,
filed
an arrest
has been
warrant
is-
See
charges.
423;
at
N.W.2d
See
Jackson,
N.W.2d Johnson,
sued.
Instead,
Accordingly, complaint purpose a of arti- once occurred, generally applicable has been cle 10 is and arrest has section filed suspects a police longer police is no a criminal all interviews with interview Instead, investigation. police it crimes. It officers to shape takes the is common suspects interrogation This is even be in the conclusion more trained accusation. Miranda See sig- eliciting evident interviewing when involves confessions. 778 182, (Iowa 2016); 449-55, 202 Arizona, 436, Varnum v. S.Ct. N.W.2d
v. 384 U.S. 86 (1966). (Iowa 2009). Brien, 862, 1602, 1615-17, Im 876 16 694 L.Ed.2d normally power portantly, confessions are that the important It is to observe words v. Illi guilt. ful Escobedo See our in both constitution and used U.S. 1758, 478, 487-88, nois, 84 S.Ct. 378 U.S. “right articulate the Constitution (1964). Thus, 1763-64, L.Ed.2d 977 have the same over counsel” remained suspect represent reason for counsel a right applies The text tells us time. as the during an interview is the same Yet, it prosecutions.”3 to “criminal only suspect represent reason for counsel Supreme not until 1932 that the U.S. was 486, at id. See at 84 S.Ct. trial. of a concept declared the “criminal Court 1762. beyond the trial it- prosecution” extended Notwithstanding, consti the text of the Powell, 58, at See 287 U.S. S.Ct. at self. analysis at core of our tution is time, again 59-60. Over was extended Briggs, 666 primary our focus. See State v. interrogations prior any custodial (Iowa 2003) (noting while general investiga- charges once criminal intent polestar analysis this is the “[o]ur specific suspect. focused tion has on a constitution!,]” framers our 490-91, Escobedo, at S.Ct. at U.S. foremost, give the words “[f]irst ‘[w]e Eventually, 1765. the view broadened natural and by the framers them used least,” Rothgery, 554 U.S. at “at ” (fourth meaning’ commonly-understood stages” at all “critical crimi- S.Ct. original) (quoting Howard alteration proceedings. States nal See United Co., Schildberg Constr. Wade, 218, 227, U.S. S.Ct. (Iowa 1995))). that the The text tells us The 18 L.Ed.2d facts applies only to accused right to counsel case and circumstances each were the case, and, only to a purposes of for the this developing tools for the constitutional Const, art. prosecution. criminal See Iowa meaning. Thus, recognize § we can circumstances facts and in this case if the evidence right to counsel was not for confirm that Green the conclusion that was supports “accused,” mally informally an at the prosecution accused a criminal prosecution” was not a “criminal interview making In this deci time the interview. our existing jurisprudence. Green under sion, prior are not confined to our we voluntarily appeared station. that a holdings in Johnson and Jackson have left interview room or He could requires criminal at least stopped any time. There interview to be filed an arrest warrant complaint arrest, no for his and there warrant issued, but we confined to the be are charges no him. were filed These of a criminal Accord meaning prosecution. signal police investigation, facts justify facts before ingly, the us must prosecution. criminal reach. This conclusion we is because truth, circumstances can be many our constitution interpret consistent to distinguish prearrest inter- given our founders articulated the text us from a through prosecution. the lens facts and circum view Addition- Pate, is not the today. ally, to counsel sole stances of See Griffin *9 above, recognize right applies concerns a criminal Again, 3. the also noted this case life, involving liberty the indi or of an prosecution. "cases However, I, § as Iowa Const. vidual.” art. protection against the and in must fundamental balance also the consider role of in a police investigation The herent imbalance interview. criminal and law enforcement process ini The society. constitution addresses this imbalance adversarial that gives right to the tially by prohibiting police seizing to counsel includes rise accusatory stage, the the in- suspicion individuals without reasonable but excludes vestigatory stage. the lines drawn probable crime or cause believe a While I, stages time, between these move art. can over crime See Iowa Const. occurred. McIver, 8; 699, the facts and § circumstances this case State v. N.W.2d identify (Iowa 2015). Next, primarily the an forces investi- requires police gation, prosecution. not a give warnings engaging before in a custo 9;§ dial See Iowa Const. art. interview. Assistance of counsel would aid Schlitter, State v. N.W.2d suspect during a police interrogation and (Iowa 2016). only is a prosecution It once help correct would the inherent imbalance is that the is cor commenced imbalance the investigatory between forces of the through adversary process rected and government a suspect, our consti but by through right given counsel arti give tution does counsel as cle section 10. protection from all police encounters. It end, large applies gov relies meas- those Green accused in a ure on the criminal or prosecuting prosecution involvement ernment or involving liberty. life hold attorney in it into there is the interview elevate solely no on prosecution of an But based accused. presence prosecut and the of a that do assistance facts describe involvement ing attorney during investigatory police an support prosecution a criminal either. Evans, interview. See State v. N.W.2d 1993). (Iowa prosecutor The only partici- Jury B. The Instruction. We “ pated investigator, in the interview as said, have ‘Malice’ ... that means condi as con-
just police officers. He did not tion of mind which one do a prompts or front as an accused direct accusa- Green act wrongful intentionally, legal without Instead, tory statements toward him. McCollom, justification or excuse.” State v. prosecutor joined had with law enforce- 988, 151 gather ment investigate acts individual When prosecutor crime. The seek- assisted mind, state the individual said have ing guiding warrants aforethought.” “malice acted" with throughout investigation. prosecu- The 257, 265 Bentley, prosecute tor then used this evidence to (Iowa 2008). context, In the homicide by filing trial information. life, act is wrongful taking a and therefore aforethought important person It is acts with if remember that malice democracy prompting has a mind person our constitution is achieved the state of of another in large part by person balance it creates to take the life government tentionally, legal justification the forces and the between rights aforethought may accompa But individuals. the balance excuse. Malice kill, may works many rights. ny simply with the use an unlawful intent to physical is but “to harm Among to counsel one. all the be an unlawful intent do rights, in death. State some attach before the criminal to another” results begins, Myers, some attach Ceretti, prosecution, some attach after. The see also State *10 780 2015); (Iowa aforethought by malice dant with 93-94 & n.4 Malice acted Afore (10th using weapon, natural Dictionary dangerous a
thought, ed. Black’s Law or 2014), consequence physical of which is harm accompanied specific a Whether simply consisting to. of death. intent kill or harm; physical general “[a] intent to do to this approved instructions We have person mal who another
person kills discharged effect a fire when defendants express implied or aforethought ice either victim, Ambrose, arm at a see 861 aimed murder,” manslaughter. not and commits 560-61, struck in the at victim N.W.2d a § Code Iowa 707.1. Lass, object, a blunt see v. head with State 761-62, 1975), 758, (Iowa 228 766 N.W.2d then, aforethought, is a Malice a a victim the chest with stabbed culpable of term art used to describe a 136, Roan, penknife, v. see State 122 Iowa mind, state of an essential element 139, 997, (1904). Similarly, 97 998 N.W. that must offense of state murder variety based on uses of defendants’ a a jury beyond to the prove reasonable dangerous weapons, on the we have relied Reeves, See State v. 670 N.W.2d doubt. uphold despite inference to convictions (Iowa 2003). However, 199, it is often 207 challenges sufficiency to the a defen impossible jury determine See, Artzer, e.g., crime. N.W.2d 609 mind dant’s state of the aid (firearm); Frazer, 530 v. State 267 N.W.2d Serrato, v. inference. See State 787 N.W.2d (Iowa 1978) 34, (automobile); 39 State 2010). (Iowa 462, By instructing the 469 60, 65, 854, Emery, 236 Iowa it malice from jury may infer the use (iron Heinz, (1945) pipe); 856-57 State v. present dangerous of a courts weapon, 1259, 1241, 10, 21 223 275 Iowa N.W. straightforward example jury with (1937) (hands fists, when used prove the might defendant’s how State child). weap approve deadly a small inference, culpable state of mind. they because accu are an instructions jury permitted but never re which is rate law statement aid defin make, quired to see Sandstrom v. Mon honored,” often ing the, although “time tana, 524, 2450, 510, 442 99 U.S. S.Ct. poorly concept of afore malice understood 2459, (1979); 61 State v. L.Ed.2d 39 Rine thought. Yeager L. 4 L. & Ronald John (Iowa hart, 319, 1979), N.W.2d Carlson, Criminal Law & Iowa Practice: juror exists rational infer because could 131, § at 35 Procedure dangerous one weapon who uses harm, However, may physical- intends cause and even there be circumstances 526, Artzer, infer appropriate to kill. See not be where it would N.W.2d (Iowa may Berlovich, example, the 220 malice. For defendant 1288, 853, (1935); argue deadly or weapon Iowa dan- N.W. was Ochoa, Brown, gerous. see also State v. See State v. 67 Iowa (Iowa 1976) (“It (1885); see also State presumed a person N.W. Greene, consequences intends the natural 537-38 his 2006). acts.”). unjustified inappropri- intentional If The inference would be unex cused, grievous bodily causing ate harm physical is, death because death harm act, wrongful using consequence therefore intent to is- foreseeable Or, may con- things “weapon.” do these is a defendant state mind that weapon deadly, but aforethought. constitute malice assert would cede McCollom, 988, 151 intentionally, when at was not used such as Thus, may accidentally discharged. infer the defen- firearm is
781 390, 392, that Pepples, v. 395 he used bat manner. It could State Smith, so 242 also infer he did with State N.W.2d malice afore- (Iowa 1976). thought. of fact If the 325-26 trier assertion, in- accepts defendant’s that a person While evidence inappropriate ference would be because dangerous weapon fight took to a could not the defendant did intend the foresee- support inference of malice afore consequences Finally, able the action. it thought, requirement. is not a Malice may argue the defendant the inference aforethought simply is inferred from the because, weapon improper though even of the dangerous weapon, use see State deadly, though the was and even defendant Reeves, (Iowa 2001), N.W.2d consequences intended foreseeable the manner that Green in this used bat it, using adequate prov- the defendant had case—to cause to another—supports death bodily of imminent ocation fear harm the inference of malice aforethought. The Reeves, weapon. at use the See aforethought instructions on malice and a 207; McNamara, 25- Iowa dangerous weapon accurately stated (1960); State N.W.2d law, and there was substantial evidence Borwick, 639, 643, 193 Iowa 187 N.W. presented to support at trial them. We-do inap- be inference would Ambrose, not find them redundant. See propriate because the defendant’s state Therefore, at if jury 561. re malicious, was not instead mind but was jected argument, Green’s self-defense it justified in- excused. Green asserts could, to, but not required was infer Green was in his inappropriate ference with aforethought acted malice from his he examples; based last these dangerous weapon. use of Later instruc argues the com- evidence did show he explained justification tions Green’s de mitted the homicide with malice because fense and the State’s burden overcome he not bring weapon did to the encoun- Moreover, jury it. was instructed it acting ter he was self-defense. See only guilty could find Green of second- Rigg, R. Robert Practice Series™: it degree proved murder if found the State 3:5, (2016-2017). § Law at Criminal justification. he lacked ob Green does not Essentially, challenges jury in- Green instructions, ject to other these and the asserting struction this ease there jury apparently found the met its to support was not substantial it. of proof. burden We find no error. Hanes, hold court properly We instructed Green testified he held a baseball that jury infer acted could bat to throat until he aforethought Roster’s died. Medi malice his use expert testimony Thus, cal was dangerous weapon. necessarily introduced that, circumstances, trial under these there no constitutional error. Be- hold was up to would have taken two minutes. The cause we conclude there no constitu- consequence person instructions, foreseeable of a with a in the jury tional error dowe significant weight advantage forcing a bat not address the State’s assertion that person preserve throat another Green failed constitutional length of time is con argument, death. Green nor do we address Green’s al- this, he cedes claim did and death followed. ternative assistance ineffective Thus, bring weap while Green did not Finally, we do not decide counsel. whether encounter, on to a rational observer al- malice-inference instruction is ways appropriate infer he intended to kill Koster person could when when a kills an- request weapon. prior to the interview and did dangerous hold other with case, speak dur- opportunity such an infer- with counsel Green’s *12 ing permissible. the interview. ence Further, although prosecutor the trav- Conclusion. V. Florida, interrogation eled to viewed the claims of error and reject Green’s room, from have appears another and judgment ap- the court of the affirm on a of occasions the discussed couple right pro- no counsel peals. There was police progress interrogation of the with I, 10 of by article the Iowa vided section officers, has he show faced failed at time volun- Constitution the Green’s by being an imbalance confronted with a tary and with noncustodial interview in the arts prosecutor trained skilled supervision county of an Iowa the under Instead, interrogation. record shows right attorney. The constitutional to coun- only talked occasionally the officers with trial, ensuring a fair is essential to but sel during prosecutor of the inter- breaks application prosecution or has no view, suggested areas of prosecutor could ac- case with which counsel aid the interview, inquiry or direction no cused. There was case in shows Nothing little record else. interview. As to the the time Green’s prosecutor’s involvement had shifted from jury inferring use of a instruction mal- to an investigative an accusatorial role. aforethought danger- from use ice result, As right counsel Green’s weapon, ous this was accurate state- I, argument Article 10 of fails. section supported by of the ment law and prohibit Iowa Constitution does not law aforethought in this Malice case. seeking advice from enforcement legal term of is a art used describe county attorneys of a crimi- course mental culpable state. Mental states neces- nal is thus investigation. record proven sarily be It must inference. was trigger right sufficient counsel provide this not error even of the under broad construction “all supported guidance, as Green’s actions criminal or the prosecutions” clause dis- reasons, of malice. For these inference I, language “cases” of article sec- tinctive affirm. Senn, tion 10. State See AFFIRMED. (de- (2016) J., (Wiggins, dissenting) 36-47 scribing unique history features and Mansfield, Wiggins, Hecht, Zager, 10). I, id. generally section article J., JJ., join opinion. Appel, this files J., (Appel, dissenting). 50-68 concurring opinion joined Wiggins and Hecht, separate JJ. Waterman files Hecht, JJ., special Wiggins join by Zager, concurring opinion joined J. concurrence. APPEL, (concurring specially). Justice WATERMAN, (concurring spe- Justice has been This decided fact-bound cially). narrowly presented. on the At record interview, I concur in the result respectfully time of no John Green’s indict- down, I majority’s opinion. separately no write ment had criminal been handed right no information reiterate that to counsel attaches complaint trial had been I, filed, of the no his arrest under article section 10 warrant for had been issued, filing before the sought or had not Constitution and Green been charges proceeding, in a court for the rea- arrested. Green had retained counsel Senn, State thoroughly explained charged sons tion before the of Iowa State him 2016) (surveying 8-31 with a crime. language history article section join I majority opinion do not to the determining 10 and no to counsel Young, extent it relies on during implied-consent procedures existed (Iowa 2015), inaccu filed). charges As cor majority before suggests dicta that “the ^cases’ rately observes, rectly there “no state other language article section 10 reflects court the nation that has held the can exist even to counsel in attaches a criminal *13 filing formal informal vestigation filing charges.” prior to the charges.” Young does not stand for that precharge right Green claims he had a Young contrary, To proposition. found to counsel under article section 10 be- in right to counsel which cases crimi police trav- prosecutor cause nal misdemeanor charges that carried a prosecu- eled tandem and the Florida potential sentence of incarceration had guided tor Fifth interview. The been filed. Id. at 281. I, section 9 of the
Amendment and article previously court has never Our held Miranda warn- require Iowa Constitution suggested counsel under sec- ings protect to counsel tion 10 could arise before a is custodial interviews before and after suggest court. Why commenced See State v. filing charges. of criminal now? should case before decide the us Schlitter, (Iowa 2016) and leave at that. (noting under the Iowa and Federal both Constitutions, officers “[l]aw enforcement J., joins Zager, special concurrence. Miranda required warnings give are subjected suspect custody when interrogation” analyzing whether custody). But ma-
defendant was in as the holds,
jority Green’s to counsel in his noncustodial interview triggered police investiga- as of the part
conducted