State of Iowa v. Arzel Jones
Supreme Court of Iowa
1ConcurrenceMansfield, J.
I agree that the defendant’s convictions should be affirmed. However, I am unable to join part IV of the majority’s opinion.
Our language is capable of many things, but I do not believe it allows us to interpret the expression “find the facts specially and on the record” as the majority has done. The majority reasons that the specific phrase “on the record” means “orally and in the presence of the defendant.” However, construing the entire passage, the majority then goes on to say that it does not require the judge to tell the defendant what facts the judge has found. The judge only needs to…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Malloy v. HoganSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Waller v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Kentucky v. StincerSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., County of RiversideSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.