Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State of Iowa v. Noah Riley Crooks

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 20, 2018No. 16-0851Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

APPEL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority's disposition with respect to some aspects of this case, but would vacate the decision of the district court and remand the case for consideration of the Lyle factors before convicting and sentencing Crooks. See State v. Lyle , 854 N.W.2d 378, 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014) ; see also Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 477-78, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2468, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012).

I. Statutory Interpretation Regarding Age Floor.

On the question of statutory interpretation, I agree with the majority that the legislature did not…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Miller v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. Roper v. SimmonsSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  3. State v. LyleSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  4. State of Iowa v. Denem Anthony NullSupreme Court of Iowa · 2013
  5. Lawrence J. Holt v. Robert Sarver, Commissioner of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1971

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API