State of Iowa v. Zachary Ryan James ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 16–0609
Filed June 23, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
ZACHARY RYAN JAMES,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Adams County, Dustria A.
Relph, Judge.
The district court granted the State’s motion to regulate discovery
and prevented the defendant from issuing ex parte subpoenas duces
tecum on third parties without notice to the State. AFFIRMED.
Unes J. Booth of Booth Law Firm, Osceola, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins and Andrew B.
Prosser, Assistant Attorneys General, and Douglas D. Daggett, County
Attorney, for appellee.
Alan R. Ostergren, Muscatine, for amicus curiae Iowa County
Attorneys Association.
2
ZAGER, Justice.
This case is a companion case to State v. Russell, ___ N.W.2d ___
(Iowa 2017), also filed today. This case raises the same legal
propositions 1 as those in Russell. Specifically, the district court order in
this case prevented James from issuing an ex parte subpoena duces
tecum and provided,
Defendant shall not [serve] or deliver any subpoena on any
person or entity for any purpose other than to secure the
attendance of that person or entity as a witness at a
deposition, on notice to all parties, pursuant to I.R.Crim.P.
Rules 2.13(1) or (2) or Rule 2.13(2)(b) or to secure the
attendance of a witness at trial or other court hearing.
We granted James’s application for discretionary review. Since the
same legal reasoning and opinion in Russell fully applies here, our
opinion here is controlled and governed by our opinion in Russell. For
the reasons set forth in Russell, the decision of the district court is
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This opinion shall not be published.
1The defendant also raises the question of the right to confrontation under the
United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution, which was not raised in Russell,
___ N.W.2d at ___. However, the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to
reconsider the district court’s ruling, and therefore raises it for the first time on appeal.
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, including constitutional
issues, and therefore error was not preserved on this claim. State v. Derby, 800 N.W.2d
52, 60 (Iowa 2011).