Iowa anal sex dating Chatroletta
We have also allowed the court to take judicial notice of well-known facts to establish a factual basis. Have a hard time saying the word—immunodeficiency virus, that you knew that you had that, that you were positive for that and that you engaged in intimate contact with another person and you didn't acknowledge or that person didn't know that you had the virus. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1184 (defining “intimate” as “engaged in or marked by sexual relations”). W.2d 264, 265 (Iowa 1973) (showing the district court asked the defendant to explain his actions supporting the crime of larceny in the night time and the defendant responded he “took money from the Skelly Station.”); State v. W.2d 624, 625 (Iowa 1972) (showing a factual basis for the crime of larceny when, among other evidence, the defendant stated, “I just broke into the place I guess.”). Cody, 438 F.2d 287, 289 (8th Cir.1971) (“The government's argument that [a factual basis] was fulfilled by the prosecutor reading from the indictment in the presence of the defendant falls far short of demonstrating any factual basis for the defendant's plea.”). It also establishes Rhoades used a condom when performing anal sex. Nor do the minutes of testimony show the likelihood the sexual activity in this case could result in the transmission of HIV. We once assured attorneys that they need not “know what the law will become in the future to provide effective assistance of counsel .” Snethen v.
When analyzing the record, we do not require the record “to show the totality of evidence necessary to support a guilty conviction,” but only that the record demonstrates the facts to support the elements of the offense. The colloquy that took place between the district court and Rhoades was as follows: THE COURT: What the state would have to prove is that on or about June 26th of 2008, here in Black Hawk County, Iowa, you did knowing that you had human—and I—I apologize. THE COURT: And did you engage in intimate contact with another person? THE COURT: And did that person not know that you had this virus? THE COURT: Can the court rely upon the minutes for a factual basis, state? “‘Intimate contact’ means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.” Iowa Code § 709C. In a previous case, we considered whether a plea colloquy between the district court and the defendant established a factual basis. At most, we can surmise from Rhoades's affirmative response that he had some sort of sexual relations with the victim. I would not find that counsel was ineffective for allowing Rhoades to plead guilty to the charge without a further development of the facts during the plea colloquy. They could, we reassured them, provide effective assistance of counsel by standing on “established rules of law.” State v.
At the plea colloquy, the defendant stated all witnesses would be truthful if they testified according to the minutes of testimony. He further admitted he knew he was HIV positive when he engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim. The district court found a factual basis for the crime. On appeal, the defendant argued there was not a factual basis to show how sexual intercourse between he and the victim could result in the transmission of HIV. Rhoades knew whether he should engage in intimate contact, whether this intimate contact needed to be protected or unprotected, the reasons he believed the intimate contact did or did not need to be protected, and whether there was a possibility that the HIV could be transmitted.
Rhoades had all of the medical information regarding his HIV status and his viral load. The governor signed the bill, and it was effective May 30, 2014.
contacted the police, and subsequently the State charged Rhoades with criminal transmission of HIV in violation of Iowa Code section 709C.1. We review issues of statutory interpretation for correction of errors at law. “Intimate contact ” means the intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person in a manner that could result in the transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.․4. Thus, to establish a factual basis for Rhoades's guilty plea, the record must establish the four elements of the crime together with the two requirements of the statutory definition of intimate contact. First, a defendant may attack his or her guilty plea on the ground the defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel as required under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because there was no factual basis to support the defendant's guilty plea.
Engages in intimate contact with another person.․․2. “Human immunodeficiency virus ” means the human immunodeficiency virus identified as the causative agent of acquired immune deficiency syndrome.b. Causation must be reasonably possible under the facts and circumstances of the case to convict a person of criminal transmission of HIV in violation of Iowa Code section 709C.1. We have recognized at least two ways a defendant may attack his or her guilty plea. A defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence “(1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure resulted in prejudice” in order to establish an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
understood Rhoades to be HIV negative, in part because Rhoades's online profile listed him as HIV negative. Rhoades appealed and we transferred the case to our court of appeals. Rhoades requested further review, which we granted.
This was the attorney's first case involving Iowa Code section 709C.1. On September 11, the district court suspended Rhoades's twenty-five year sentence and placed Rhoades on probation for five years. On March 15, 2010, Rhoades filed an application for postconviction relief pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 822. It is an affirmative defense that the person exposed to the human immunodeficiency virus knew that the infected person had a positive human immunodeficiency virus status at the time of the action of exposure, knew that the action of exposure could result in transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus, and consented to the action of exposure with that knowledge. Therefore, to establish the crime of criminal transmission of HIV the State must prove the following elements: (1) “the defendant engaged in intimate contact with [the victim]”, (2) at the time of intimate contact the defendant's HIV status was positive, (3) the defendant knew his HIV status was positive, and (4) “[a]t the time of the intimate contact, [the victim] did not know that the defendant had a positive HIV status.” State v. For purposes of section 709C.1, intimate contact requires “(1) there was an intentional exposure of the body of one person to a bodily fluid of another person, and (2) this occurred in a manner that could result in the transmission of ․ HIV.” Id. In considering the definition of “intimate contact,” we have previously defined “could” in the criminal transmission statute as requiring “that transmission of ․ HIV from the infected person to the exposed person was possible considering the circumstances.” State v. First, “possible” may mean something “that may or may not occur.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1771 (unabr. This definition is broad, and some courts have recognized the word “possible” in certain contexts may mean allowing any likelihood of occurrence, no matter how remote.
Rhoades engaged the services of an attorney to defend him in this criminal matter. We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. This section shall not be construed to require that an infection with the human immunodeficiency virus has occurred for a person to have committed criminal transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus.5. It is also incumbent on the district court to instruct the jury on the definition of “intimate contact” because the legislature has specially defined this phrase in the Iowa Code. (recognizing the jury instruction also defined intimate contact to mirror the statutory definition). Although there are multiple definitions of “possible,” we have not previously elaborated on what “possible” means here.
We also find the court in this case cannot use the rule of judicial notice to establish the factual basis in the guilty plea record. The petitioner in this case, Nick Rhoades, was diagnosed with HIV in 1998.
The defendant appealed and we transferred the case to our court of appeals. On further review, we find the guilty plea record did not contain a factual basis to support the plea.