Four new opinions, today, but one was a per curiam opinion based on one of the others. I think I brought this up before, but I have to think that, when two similar cases are decided at the same time, one gets full treatment and the other a per curiam opinion, the defendant who got the per curiam opinion, regardless of the outcome, has to feel a little slighted. Anyway, her we go:
Goosman v. State - Reviewing the Heemstradecision to determine if it applies retroactively. The Court says that, because the Court was changing the law, rather than just clarifying the law as it stood at the time of the offense, the change is not applied retroactively. Now, I think I learned in law school that courts don’t change law, they just say what the law has always been, regardless of what they said previously. Hmmm…
This was argued under the Federal Due Process Clause, so I imagine we’ll see some application to the US Supreme Court regarding this. We’ll see how that turns out. Also, the sister case of Scott v. Iowa was decided per curiam with the same outcome.
Heemstra, by the way, held that, when a person commits a felonious assault and the result of that assault is the death of the “assaultee”, the assault merges into the homicide and cannot be used as the predicate offense for a felony-murder theory of prosecution.
State v. Stone- This is an appeal from a driving under suspension conviction. The defendant’s license was suspended for an OWI test refusal. He was charged with violating the terms of his work permit (he got his truck washed and stopped at McDonalds, oh no!). The DOT later rescinded his suspension, for whatever reason. He argued that the evidence of his suspension should not be admissible at trial because it was later rescinded.
The Court affirmed the district court ruling that a rescission of a license suspension does not magically wipe away any evidence of that suspension. At the time he was stopped for expired tags, he was suspended and the conviction stands.
Here’s some helpful advice to people like Mr. Stone: If you’re going to drive without a license or violate the terms of your license, make sure your tags are current and your car is in good working order, and don’t drive like your in the lightbike scene from Tron, because that will get you every time.
Harder v. Anderson, Arnold, Dickey, Jensen, Gullickson and Sanger, LLP, et al. – A noncustodial mother appeals the district court’s ruling that she was not entitled to an injunction requiring her children’s therapist to release the children’s mental health records. The Court holds that the standard in a case like this is what is in the best interests of the child. Viewing the case using that standard, the Court holds that requiring the release of the records would not be in the children’s best interests, so the Court affirms the lower court.
One of the more poignant portions of Justice Wiggins opinion from page 8:
“Moreover, Susan claims she is seeking the records for use in her own therapy, in order to get a larger picture of her children’s feelings towards her, and repair her strained relationship with her daughter. To help Susan achieve this goal, without compromising the mental health of the children, Pini offered to meet with Susan to answer her questions or listen to her concerns dealing with the children. Pini also agreed to work with Susan’s therapist to coordinate Susan’s therapy. Instead of exploring these options with Pini, Susan filed her action demanding the release of her children’s records. Susan’s actions lead us to believe that her request for the records is in her own best interest rather than that of
her children.”
Isn’t that always the case?
