Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-605 / 07-1813 Filed December 17, 2008

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CHAD ALBERT GODFREY, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J. Moon, Judge.

The State of Iowa has been granted discretionary review of the district court's ruling ordering the State to provide the home addresses of all witnesses listed in the minutes of testimony. AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins and Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorneys General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Keisha Cretsinger, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan Japuntich, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellee.

Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.

2 POTTERFIELD, J. I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On August 14, 2007, Chad Godfrey was charged by trial information with sexual abuse in the second degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.1(3) and 709.3(2) (2007); domestic abuse assault in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(4); and false imprisonment in violation of Iowa Code section 710.7. The same day, the State filed the minutes of testimony of twelve witnesses, listing a home address for only one witness, the alleged victim. On August 30, 2007, the State filed additional minutes of testimony of three witnesses listing no home addresses. On August 31, 2007, Godfrey filed a motion to compel compliance with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.5(3), requesting that the State provide the home addresses of all witnesses in the minutes of testimony. On September 17, 2007, the State filed a resistance to Godfrey's motion to compel, stating that service could be achieved through the witnesses' places of employment, which were provided in the minutes of testimony. On September 17 and 18, 2007, the State filed two more notices of additional minutes of testimony for three witnesses listing no home addresses. On October 1, 2007, Godfrey filed another motion to compel compliance with rule 2.5(3), requesting home addresses of State witnesses as well as a full and fair statement of witness testimony. The district court issued an order on October 2, 2007, sustaining Godfrey's motions and requiring the State to amend the minutes of testimony within ten days. The district court stated that minutes of testimony were lacking in every respect set forth in Godfrey's motions and that

3 the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure "clearly state that the residence address of each witness will be set forth." On October 10, 2007, the State filed a motion to reconsider the district court's October 2 ruling, stating that the rules only require a "place of residence" and not a physical address. The State asserted that "place of residence" could be interpreted to mean city, county, or state of residence. The district court conducted a hearing on October 16, 2007, after which the court denied the State's request to reconsider its prior ruling. The district court determined that the phrase "place of residence" as used in rule 2.5(3) was ambiguous and used former versions of the rule and related cases to aid in interpretation. The district court found that the intent of the drafters in writing the rule was that home addresses be provided. Thus, the district court ordered the State to provide the home addresses of all of its witnesses. On October 26, 2007, the State submitted amended minutes of testimony that listed the home addresses of all witnesses with the exception of three: (1) one witness refused to provide his home address; (2) one witness provided his work address; and (3) the personal address of one witness was unknown. The State also obtained a temporary protective order that prohibited Godfrey's attorney from distributing or disseminating certain personal addresses. In

addition, on October 30, 2007, the State sought discretionary review of the district court's ruling and a stay. The State's application was granted on

November 20, 2007. Godfrey asks us to affirm the district court and also asserts an argument of ineffective assistance of counsel.

4 II. Standard of Review

We review the district court's interpretation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.5(3) for correction of errors at law. State v. Sanders, 623 N.W.2d 858, 859 (Iowa 2001). III. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.5(3)1 The rule at issue states: The prosecuting attorney shall, at the time of filing such information, also file the minutes of evidence of the witnesses which shall consist of a notice in writing stating the name, place of residence and occupation of each witness upon whose expected testimony the information is based, and a full and fair statement of the witness' expected testimony. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.5(3) (2007) (emphasis added). We interpret rules in the same manner we interpret statutes. City of Sioux City v. Freese, 611 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 2000). When a rule's language is clear, we should not look beyond its express meaning. State v. Finders, 743 N.W.2d 546, 548 (Iowa 2008). A rule is ambiguous if "reasonable pers ons could disagree as to its meaning." Wright v. Iowa Dep't of Corrs., 747 N.W.2d 213, 215 (Iowa 2008). If a rule is ambiguous, the court may interpret the rule to determine the legislative purpose and avoid absurd results. Finders, 743 N.W.2d at 548. The court may consider among other matters: (1) the object sought to be attained; (2) the common law or former statutory provisions; and (3) the consequences of a particular construction. Iowa Code

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellant , vs. CHAD ALBERT GODFREY , Defenda nt

Iowa Law