*1 nonexistent abuse discretion standard analysis without principled by support any can used to award sanc- supported by district court substantial tions. only I can conclude abused its making discretion in this award. See State practice
It is standard for defendants to v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d myriad raise of defenses their answers (holding court its abuses discretion petitions. These defenses include fail- when it bases its decision untenable action, ure to state a cause of statute of grounds or it acts unreasonably. A defenses, laches, estoppels, limitation com- ground or is reason when it untenable fault, assumption risk, parative fail- based on an application erroneous of law mitigate damages, ure to unreasonable or by when it supported is not substantial injury, failure to avoid or Many misuse. evidence.). times defendants raise these defenses support.
without factual If by we abide majority’s analysis in its review of the HECHT, J., joins this dissent. court, the attorneys district raise
these without support defenses should be
sanctioned, sanction would be un-
reviewable.
I suspect party when a requests sanc-
tions this court will not overturn sub-
stantial award of if sanctions the nonsane- party
tioned submit justifying can records Iowa, Appellee, STATE of the work it I pursuing say did its claim. this because the award of the sanction approved majority no relation- Bradley REYNOLDS, Appellant. Allen
ship actually to the time spent by the dealing defendant in with the sanctioned No. 07-1617. $25,000 If conduct. it takes deter a solo practitioner claims, filing from frivolous Supreme Court of Iowa. $150,000 then is enough fifty- to deter a May 1, 2009. filing law firm from frivolous claims?
Therefore, I would find the district court (1) by:
abused its determin- discretion not spent by the time the defendant (2) against activity;
defend the sanctioned
not determining the minimum amount (3) conduct;
needed to deter the not deter-
mining ability party sanctioned (4) pay; considering other fac-
tors set forth the ABA standards. I sustain writ
would and remand the
case to the district court to determine the
proper light sanction of the test I have forth in Maybe this dissent. the sanc-
set low, just too high, right.
tion too *4 McMinn, ap- City,
Martha M. Sioux for pellant. General, Miller, Attorney
Thomas J. General, Soich, Attorney Sheryl Assistant Petersen, County Attorney, and J. Carl appellee.
STREIT, Justice. pool Rapids,
Outside of hall Rock Kramer into a Reynolds got and Dan Brad and fight. injured, Reynolds Kramer was trial, Before was arrested assault. ruling evidentiary district court entered an introduce allowing State to evidence previously threatened had trial, At and Kramer. Kramer assaulted eleven past testified to incidents with Reynolds. Before the submission jury, requested jury case to the regarding prior-bad-acts instructions his for peaceful- evidence and character Reynolds’ request ness. The court denied gave a for the instruction on character and prior-bad-aets in- modified version of the Reynolds guilty The jury struction. found bodily injury. Reynolds cluding “a causing logical of assault connection between appeals and the court of re- defendant’s appealed, intent at time of a crime (assault) prior Even and his acts of versed. violence ex- was relevant to motive isted and that evidence of bad acts night question, prejudicial trial, it was on the was relevant and admissible.” At to admit error since the Kramer past testified to eleven incidents prejudice outweighs involving unfair their Reynolds. probative value. therefore vacate the We February 2002: pushed decision, appeals’ court of reverse the Kramer the Sportsman’s outside court, of the district judgment remand (i) told only keep- Kramer that thing case. ing Reynolds beating from Kramer isup the fact that is a lawyer
I.Background Facts Prior Pro- worth was not his license ceedings. (ii) law, practice if Reynolds ever *5 Dan September Mag- On and wife, saw Kramer within five feet of his gie Kramer were at the hall in Rock pool he would beat Kramer senseless. drinking and Rapids playing pool. beer 2. At May 2002: the country club Reynolds, ex-husband, Maggie’s Brad golf course, Reynolds shook his at fist in a stopped to chat with friend. Dan Kramer waiting and said would be Reynolds history Kramer and had a for him. animosity between because Maggie them May Reynolds 3. 2002: went into dating had started Kramer while she was Todd’s Cafe said that and he should Reynolds. still married to Kramer ap- have thrown Kramer off the balcony the Reynolds proached question to him a ask other day golf at the course. Reynolds’ Maggie’s Reyn- about and son. 4. Summer 2002: Kramer was walk- olds indicated he did not want to talk to ing dog his in front of the old high Later, Reynolds Kramer. and Kramer school, Reynolds pushed and Kramer got into an outside pool altercation down and said some obscene to things Reynolds hall. Kramer invited to take a him. Reynolds at him. swing claims he turned and to leave Kramer hit him in the back of September 5. 2002: In front of the Reynolds the head. hit Kramer three Sportsman’s, got in Reynolds Kramer’s times, and Kramer called 911. face, Kramer down, pushed him poked and him sought medical and was diag- treatment eye. with sprained jaw, nosed a minor con- Reynolds 6. June ap- 2003: cussion, probable and a broken nose. proached while he Kramer and his son charged with assault caus- sitting were in his car in front of the bodily injury. Dollar General. threatened trial, Kramer, him, requested punched
Before an evi- and then asked dentiary ruling it to permitting present Kramer’s son whether he was “going “harassed, grow like up pussy had threat- to be a his dad.” In ened, assaulted, exchange dropping and intimidated” Kramer assault past charge, Reynolds agreed occasions in the aby several order to abide “motive, intent, year demonstrate no-contact order one and opportunity.” Reynolds undergo anger management and filed a resis- an evalua- motion, granted tance. The court con- tion. repu- on character and wrestling At a for the instruction 2005: February
7. meet, Reynolds Kramer both gave and were tation and modified version line, Reyn- lunch in the concession found prior-bad-acts instruction. at Kramer and cursed up blew bodily olds causing Reynolds guilty assault him. appealed, asserting the injury. Reynolds At another wres- February
8. 2005: admitting evi- prior-bad-acts erred meet, tried to tling start dence, the modified giving bathroom, in the but with Kramer fight re- instruction, give the refusing came in. someone quested instruction. The court character July Kramer and his 9. 2005: While prior-bad- appeals reversed bikes, Reynolds riding were their son and, determining acts instruction without car, by rolled down the drove his any the acts admissible or whether were window, Kramer, but spit and tried to not, abused the district court its concluded leg son’s missed hit his instead. ad- issuing ruling discretion blanket Reynolds spit at January 10. 2006: prior bad The court of mitting all acts. High Sioux Kramer outside of West in- appeals did not address the character Kramer, on, and said to “come School The State appealed. struction. something.” let’s do March his son 2006: Scope II. of Review. Reyn- into store grocery
walked *6 review a court’s evi- We district Reynolds olds was there. cursed dentiary rulings regarding the admission them. acts for discretion. abuse of incidents, which involved The first five (Iowa Parker, 196, 747 203 State v. N.W.2d Reynolds pushing threatening Kram- 2008). “An abuse discretion occurs er, Reynolds occurred 2002 after discov- when trial court exercises its discretion having wife an affair Maggie ered his grounds clearly ‘on untena or reasons Kramer. The sixth incident occurred with ” clearly ble or an extent unreasonable.’ were Maggie in 2003 while 234, Rodriquez, State v. 636 N.W.2d 239 a divorce. All six getting in the midst (Iowa (quoting Maghee, v. State 573 occurred more than of these incidents (Iowa 1997)). 1, If an abuse of N.W.2d 5 incident years question. three before the occurred, will not be year over a and a discretion reversal The incidents resumed v. remaining five warranted if error was harmless. State half later 2005). Henderson, 5, Reynolds spitting at incidents involved 10 cursing at him. most and/or jury in challenges six We review recent incident occurred about months question. the incident in Defense structions for correction of errors law. before Heemstra, 549, objected hearsay counsel on relevance and 721 State v. 553 (Iowa 2006). A testified to grounds. few witnesses We review a district court’s peaceful character. jury for an give failure to instruction Piper, v. 663 abuse of discretion. State Before submission case to (Iowa 2003). 894, “Error in 914 the court include jury, Reynolds requested merit giving instruction does not 200.34, Jury Criminal Instructions Iowa reversal unless results concerning Fintel, State v. 689 200.38, defendant.” reputa- character and concerning (Iowa 2004). 95, Reynolds’ request N.W.2d 99 The court denied tion. (the
III. 808, (Del.1994) A.2d Merits. 818-19 act of the defendant victim following the back to her Admissibility A. of Prior Bad apartment was not considered a Acts. the district contends act). stated, The Sixth Circuit has “[c]on- permitted court erred when it the State to ceivably within the language broad introduce evidence that had “ha rule any conduct defendant which rassed, assaulted, threatened, and intimi may jury’s bear adversely judgment past. dated” Kramer in Under Iowa of his character.” States v. United Coo- 5.404(6), Rule of Evidence (6th Cir.1978). per, 1079, 577 F.2d 1087-88 crimes, wrongs, Evidence of other or Maryland has defined bad act “an as prove acts is not admissible the char- activity conduct, necessarily crimi- person acter of a in order to show that nal, that impugn tends to or reflect ad- conformity acted in there- versely character, upon taking one’s into however, It may, with. be admissible consideration the facts the underlying for other such as purposes, proof of State, lawsuit.” v. Klauenberg 355 Md. motive, intent, opportunity, preparation, 528, (1999); 735 A.2d see also plan, identity, knowledge, or absence of Rawle, United States v. 845 F.2d mistake or accident. (4th (“To Cir.1988) fall within the Thus, such evidence is not admissible to scope 404(b), an Rule act need not be demonstrate the defendant has a criminal criminal, long so as it tends to impugn a disposition and likely was thus more character.”). defendant’s We find these have committed crime in question. definitions to be instructive. Castaneda, 439- (Iowa 2001). Even several of the inci public policy excluding [T]he bad- dents between and Kramer can acts evidence “is founded not on a belief crime, not be classified Reyn such as irrelevant, that the evidence is but rath- *7 cursing olds at or trying spit on er on a juries give fear that will tend to him, all of the incidents do “reflect ad it weight, excessive and on a fundamen- versely upon character, [Reynolds’] taking tal sense that should no one be convicted into consideration the facts of [this case].” a previous of crime on his or her based at All Klauenberg, 735 A.2d eleven misdeeds.” incidents potentially are thus excluded as Sullivan, 19, 24 5.404(6). prior bad acts under rule Daniels, (quoting States v. United (D.C.Cir.1985)). 1111, 1116 770 F.2d bad prior acts are ad missible if the purpose offered for of estab This a wide variety case concerns of acts, lishing motive or an intent. Iowa R. Evid. prior ranging bad from assault to 5.404(6). prior Before of cursing. yet to define evidence bad types We have what 5.404(6). admissible, acts acts can be of are excluded under rule considered the (1) jurisdictions court Although courts in other must find the evidence is “rele have vant legitimate been faced with the issue of whether and material a a issue act prior certain should be considered a the case other than general a act, acts,” actually Sullivan, commit wrongful bad few have defined what a 679 (2) See, 25, e.g., bad act at prior is. United States v. N.W.2d determine whether Robinson, (10th probative 978 F.2d 1562-64 the the value of evidence is sub Cir.1992) gang stantially danger in a the un (membership outweighed admissi- of State, act); defendant, Castaneda, prior prejudice bad Gattis v. fair ble 637 to the 290 on 440; be to decide case prompted R. 5.403. will Iowa Evid. an basis. improper it ten- “any when
Evidence is relevant any fact dency make the existence of Id. determination consequence of is Here, grant the district court or probable proba- more less of action motion and a pretrial ed the State’s issued without the evidence.” it
ble than would ruling determining prior blanket of When evidence Iowa R. Evid. 5.401. minutes in the of evi bad as listed offered “to an is establish prior dence, bad acts generally It is admissible.1 were rea, of mens the court admissibility ultimate inference of impossible to rule on trial because their require prosecutor to ‘articulate acts before should contingent on what “le admissibility is so logical theory a noncharacter of tenable ” gitimate in the case.” [are] Sulli issue[s] Sullivan, at 28 N.W.2d relevance.’ van, 679 do not think it 25. We Imwinkelried, The Use (quoting Edward J. a good practice ruling is to make final Uncharged Accused’s an Evidence evi admissibility before Rea: Doc- to Prove Mens Conduct is at trial. This not to dence received is Engulf Char- trine Threatens to Which say preliminary ruling, grant or a of a Prohibition, 51 St. acter Evidence Ohio limine, motion should not be used. We (1990)). L.J. cautioning trial court not to merely are give ruling final on such extensive the court determines the Once Here, did not varied evidence. relevant, then it balance evidence is must each incident would be examine whether probative value with evidence’s Rules of admissible under Iowa Evidence danger prejudice unfair under Iowa 5.404(6) many so and 5.403. With differ Rule Evidence 5.403. “Unfair evidence types ent and varied with dif arises cause the when the would probative ferent levels of value and varied something its decision on oth to base prejudice, for unfair the blan applicable er facts proven than the ruling adequately ket address the does law, sympathy party one such as it admissibility Although of each incident. Taylor, punish party.” desire to State v. preserve imperative parties that the er (Iowa 2004). In bal as to item of any particular ror against value the dan ancing probative also for the trial court to rule important *8 the ger prejudice, of unfair court should some ventured specificity. with factors: following the consider on thin it made such an all- ice when ruling. inclusive the light the for the evidence in of need the other evidence available issues' and Reynolds’ prior threats and as whether there is prosecution, the Kramer are relevant be saults towards committed the proof clear the defendant night his motive on they cause reveal the strength prior or weakness bad question. in The evidence was offered to issue, personal of on the relevant animus Reynolds’ the evidence demonstrate In sexual assault and toward Kramer. degree to which the fact finder in serve "where motion limine is argues preserved 1. that was not error No one error way beyond ruling question it is resolved in such a or court’s was not a final challenged will admissibility whether not the of evidence. See or ruling as to the trial”) Schaer, 630, (Iowa during (quoting State v. be admitted 757 N.W.2d 634 State v. 799, (Iowa 2001)). Daly, 2008) 800 required pre- (objection at trial not
291 cases, recog- Despite many we the fact domestic violence have prior relevant, danger were prior relationship nized that the between admitting unfair in all eleven the victim in the defendant and is relevant outweighs value, incidents their probative establishing intent motive. See and/or therefore, they should not have been (Iowa 95, 744 Reyes, v. N.W.2d 103 State admitted. Five of the incidents occurred 2008) admission of sexual (holding 2002, years more than four before the involving abuse the same victim was rele- question, immediately incident in after vant “to demonstrate the nature Maggie discovered his wife relationship feelings to- defendant’s affair having an with On five sep Kramer. individual”); ward a specific Taylor, 689 occasions, Reynolds pushed arate (“ at 6 128 n. ‘[E]videnee Kramer, telling threatened twice him that proba- especially acts is relevant and if he saw again, ever Kramer near his wife tive domestic violence cases because of he would beat him up. applying After cyclical nature of domestic violence.’ four factors set forth in it Taylor, becomes relationship between the defendant early clear each these incidents does victim, especially and the when marked probative value, have some but admitted violence, stage domestic sets the for their together, they have a high of unfair (quoting later interaction.” Jane H. Aiken prejudice. Taylor, Murphy, & Jane C. Evidence Issues in First, there was little need for this evi Cases, Fam. Domestic Violence Civil 34 dence, began as the fact that Kramer hav (2000))); L.Q. Spaulding, with Maggie an affair while she was (“The already still married to had been prior acts with victim were admissible Second, although Reynolds disclosed. ad under a generally recognized exception on threatening mitted to several ‘exclusionary the above rule’ in order ‘to occasions, parties agree did not passion show a illicit exactly transpired what on each occasion. sexual with particular relations Third, Reyn the incidents do demonstrate ” (quoting concerned in crime on trial.’ question' on the night olds’ motive —his McCormick’s Handbook on the Law Ev- they hatred of Kramer. because (2d idence, Cleary § E. ed. occurred at different and under dif times 1972))). Although case an ex- this is not (after circumstances, ferent had ample violence or as- domestic sexual having learned Kramer was an affair with sault, prior relationship we find be- wife, Maggie), they necessarily his are Reynolds and tween Kramer relevant probative or motive intent establishing Reynolds’ night motive on the years Lastly, four later. unclear “the question. The evidence offered was not which the fact finder will degree to to show a vio- general propensity towards an prompted improp decide the case on *9 “to lence but demonstrate the na- rather people er basis.” Id. Most would not [Reynolds’] feel- relationship ture who threatening consider the man cuckold ings Reyes, toward a specific individual.” aggressive be be ed him to indicative of Although at 103. of the some night question. the in havior on incidents, cursing, may such as the not be considering together, all five a incidents alone, standing a relevant certain common- jury may ag conclude was the ality together of all weaves pool incidents them he gressor at the hall because had Reynolds’ pushed demonstrates motive—his Kramer several threatened past. in the hatred of Kramer. times other, agree on parties the do not the park- in the General each The assault Dollar Third, cursing the at someone is also not admissible. Under while ing lot details. animus, of un- Taylor, danger highly in the it not personal factors listed reveals the substantially outweighs fair prejudice of the motive or intent assault probative First, was lit- Id. there probative value. Although unlikely it is person. that same The fact that need for this evidence. tle Reyn- finder that the fact would determine Mag- an affair with began having Kramer he Kramer because had olds assaulted while she was still married gie past, at him a time in the five single cursed to- animus personal establishes (and cursing spitting) incidents clear Although Kramer. there is ward question year preceding the incident assault, and Reynolds committed the proof The dan- may jury convince otherwise. Reynolds’ intent this assault is relevant to pro- had a jury concluding ger night question, admit- or motive on assault, therefore he com- pensity for highly prejudi- ting the assault would be crime, high. mitted this the Dollar assault is simi- cial. As General The admission of eleven would question, “[i]t lar to the incident in acts was harmless. “Rever prior bad put out extremely jurors difficult for be of nonconstitutional required sal is cases knowledge minds that the defen- of their appears rights it ‘that the error when in the past had [assaulted victim] dant injurious complaining party have been to con- not allow this information by the that he ly their affected error or has sciously subconsciously influence ” Henderson, Id. miscarriage justice.’ at 13. at decision.” 696 N.W.2d suffered 29). Sullivan, inci- hearing of Dollar at Anyone (quoting General easily Reynolds proba- dent could conclude presume prejudice and “reverse unless We too, bly fight this because of his started affirmatively other the record establishes value of propensity. probative Sullivan, Thus the wise.” 30. Al substantially the Dollar General assault easily argued it could be that though ad preju- of unfair outweighed mitting each individual incident would have dice. error, harmless all eleven been incidents together likely lead stacked would occur-
Lastly, the more recent incidents conclude had a for Reyn- early in 2005 and where ring initiating fights with Kramer. spit at Kramer or cursed olds either him, Reyn- highly probative neither are It was an abuse discretion nor question motive on the night olds’ evidence to admit acts. basis. unfairly prejudicial on an individual admitted improperly Here the eleven of the inci- Although individually, some Reynolds pushed, incidents where threat admissible, may admitting all five dents ened, or cursed at As we Kramer. have out- tips the scale toward unfair stated, First, probative their weighing value. introduced, prior acts evidence is “When there need for this even is little regardless purpose, of the stated since the animus personal evidence jurors very great likelihood is established, incidents already been these precisely will use harbors still do demonstrate may purpose considered[:] not be years later. Sec- five hatred *10 per- that the is a bad ond, cursing suggest defendant although admits criminal, son, that if to- a convicted he being hostile generally ” again.’ probably encountered it before did they him whenever ‘did wards Castaneda, Therefore, at 441-42 (quoting Id. 30. we reverse and re- Johnson, United States v. F.3d mand. (6th Cir.1994)). prior When the Jury B. Instructions. type act is the same of crime as the one at
issue, extremely would be difficult for “[i]t Although we have reversed and remand- jurors minds put knowledge to out of their ed prejudicial based on error in admitting that the defendant had the vic- [assaulted the prior bad jury we address the allow past and not this informa- tim] guidance instruction provide claims to in a subconsciously tion influ- consciously to trial, new any should evidence of Henderson, ence their decision.” acts be deemed admissible. N.W.2d at 13. 1. Prior bad acts. contends closing argument, In its the district court in refusing give erred to encouraged to conclude 200.34, Iowa Jury Criminal Instruction Reynolds had Kramer because assaulted concerning prior-bad-acts evidence. Reyn-
he had done so in past. requested olds use court Iowa Crimi- Again, you history. look at the need to 200.34, Jury nal pro- Instruction which history always is Mr. vides: Dan aggressor.
been the Kramer has Evidence has concerning been received always trying get been wrongful alleged other acts have been behind live in fear. this and not by committed the defendant. The de- fendant is not on trial for those acts. So, again, history foretells the future. by This evidence be shown must clear years history And the last five fore- proof, and can only used to show happen told what going Septem- [motive] [intent] [absence mistake] ber [identity [common of person scheme] Even we have determined the charged]. bad acts to and material to a be “relevant (1) you If wrongful find other acts oc- legitimate in the other than issue case (2) curred; closely were so connected in general commit propensity wrongful time; (3) were committed in the acts,” the State nevertheless used them as same or similar as the manner crime propensity could very which well charged, so as to form reasonable con- jury’s influence a decision find them, nection then only between Sullivan, guilty of assault. 679 N.W.2d at may wrongful then such other acts be best, 25. At this case demonstrates the purpose considered for the of establish- dangers allowing type this of evidence [absence of mis- [motive] [intent] very purpose for which it limited [identity per- scheme] take] [common admissible. If evidence is charged]. son admitted for a permissible purpose, such Jury Iowa Criminal Instruction 200.34 intent, by as motive or it cannot be used added). (2006) Instead, (emphasis impermissible purposes, the State for such gave following modified instruc- propensity. The State should not have tion: Reyn- offered the evidence to demonstrate olds’ intent concerning or motive then use it to Evidence has been received alleged show his other to have starting wrongful towards been fights -with committed Kramer. The record does not the defendant. de- affirmatively a lack of fendant for those acts. prejudice. establish not on trial *11 by weigh given clear the evidence. The instruc- must shown to
This evidence be law, a of the tion was correct statement to show only can used proof, and be refusing the court not err to and did intent. Reynolds’ proffered instruction. give See occurred, you wrongful If find other (Iowa State, 582, 585 Herbst v. only may such other and then then (“Under 2000) law, court is Iowa a re- pur- acts be for the wrongful considered give requested to a instruction quired establishing intent. pose having it a rule of law when states correct Reynolds challenges the omis to the facts of the case and application closely con phrase “were so sion concept is not otherwise embod- when in time” in of the fact over light nected instructions.”); David P. ied in other Leon- three at least half of the incidents occurred ard, Wigmore: The New Evidence Oth- The fight to the at issue. years prior er Misconduct and Similar Events act of time between a length 4.5.1(4) (2009). § speaks that charged is a factor the crime 2. Character. also v. weight of the See State to the evidence. refusing contends court erred to (Iowa Casady, 491 Jury give Iowa Criminal Instruction (“The af generally remoteness evidence 200.38, which, case, if edited for this reads: admissibility weight than fects the rather concerning Evidence been received evidence.”). However, remote a peaceful defendant’s character for may be it is prior act so remote This evidence should be ness. consid irrelevant, therefore, inadmissible, and ered with all evidence determin other court, by is a that determination made guilty whether defendant is Maestas, jury. not. 1974). Although courts use you If find defendant’s character as in deter temporal proximity as a factor peacefulness good, you may consid- whether to mining admit determining evidence er this whether jury only should use remoteness peaceful- of such character for much weight how to afford determine likely ness would be to commit crime evidence. charged. proposed instruction directs good If the evidence of such character as jury to evaluate to use whether enough, together peacefulness good evidence, weigh not how to all of the with other raise a As the instruction proposed the evidence. to the reasonable doubt as defendant’s states, you “if find acts ... wrongful other he must even guilt, acquitted, closely in time ... then were so connected proof good without such character the may only wrongful then other such jury would convict. (Emphasis add acts be considered....” previous good the defendant’s ed.) Iowa Under Rule of Evidence character as is not a peacefulness 5.104(a), the court issues of you beyond determines if defense find admissibility and the determines the reasonable doubt defendant committed the crime. give the There is weight to evidence. in admissibility between
difference hit Kramer As asserted jury on use the evi structing the how to offered self-defense evidence was as to character, dence once is admitted. instruction peaceful Reynolds’ jury to deter peacefulness not have directed the character for was an should issue. Martinez, how State v. whether to use the evidence but See mine *12 (Iowa 2004) (determining the trait factual issue in 624-25 this case. admits victim, to the peacefulness pertinent of crime of assaulted the but raises the not error assault and refuse defense of When self-defense. the defen- character trait self-defense, character instruction where dant of raises the issue the the crime pertinent charged). was not prove beyond State must a reasonable requested Reynolds’ instruction any following doubt the defeat the (1) character should have peacefulness claim of self-defense: the defendant given. been initiated or continued the incident result- (2) injury; defendant the did not IV. Conclusion. believe danger he was imminent It was error to admit prejudicial the injury death or and that the use force the evidence even (3) him; was not save necessary to the was relevant motive. We grounds defendant did not reasonable have appeals’ therefore vacate deci- for the belief in imminent danger he was sion, reverse the judgment district injury or death and that the use of force court, and case for a new trial. remand the him; (4) necessary was not to save DECISION OF COURT OF AP- defendant used unreasonable force. State VACATED; DISTRICT PEALS COURT Rubino, (Iowa v. AND JUDGMENT REVERSED CASE 1999). REMANDED. case, only legitimate In this factual issue in dispute was who initiated the inci- justices except All concur WIGGINS dent injury that resulted in to the victim. BAKER, JJ., specially. concur who None of the other-acts evidence the State WIGGINS, (specially Justice concur- attempted to introduce into evidence is ring). relevant to who initiated the incident. I write to concur the result reached Neither nor victim liked each by the majority apply in this case. We just other. It is logical the victim had two-part if test to determine other acts are enough Reynolds’ antics the victim admissible Rule of under Iowa Evidence initiated the The fact a person incident. 5.404(&). The court must first decide does not like another is not rele- whether the other-acts evidence is relevant vant fight. evidence as to who initiated the legitimate to a issue in dispute factual Consequently, only purpose of the oth- general other than a commit propensity. er-acts to show evidence was Sullivan, acts. wrongful 679 Sullivan, at 25. The State 2004). Next, cannot use this other-acts probative court must if its determine value I Accordingly, would find the purpose. outweighed by substantially other-acts evidence inadmissible because Id. of unfair prejudice to defendant. they legitimate are not relevant to factu- majority concludes other-acts evi- therefore, I, al dispute. issue concur legitimate dence is relevant to a factual the opinion of the court. motive, case, issue in this but probative its outweighed by BAKER, value is substantially J., joins special this danger of unfair to the defen- concurrence. Therefore, majority precluded
dant. admissibility.
its
I would find the evidence inadmissible legitimate
because it is not relevant to a