State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Albert Godfrey ( 2009 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 07–1813
Filed December 11, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellant,
vs.
CHAD ALBERT GODFREY,
Appellee.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Michael J.
Moon, Judge.
State seeks further review of court of appeals opinion affirming district
court order compelling State to provide home addresses of witnesses in
minutes of testimony. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED;
DISTRICT COURT ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Tabor and Darrel L. Mullins,
Assistant Attorneys General, Stephen H. Holmes, County Attorney, and
Keisha F. Cretsinger, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
The State charged Chad Godfrey by trial information with multiple
crimes and filed minutes of testimony of numerous witnesses in support of
the charges. The home address of only one witness was listed in the
minutes.
Godfrey filed a motion to compel compliance with Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.5(3). In the motion, Godfrey argued rule 2.5(3)
required the State to provide the home address of each witness as part of the
minutes of testimony. The State resisted the motion. The State argued rule
2.5(3) must be interpreted to require only the witness’ city, county, or state.
Ultimately, the district court interpreted rule 2.5(3) to require the
home address for each witness to be included in the minutes of testimony.
Accordingly, the district court ordered the State to provide the home address
of each witness. The State sought discretionary review. We granted review
and transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals agreed
with the analysis of the district court and affirmed. The State sought further
review, which we granted.
After granting further review, we adopted Iowa Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.11(12). The new rule governs disclosure of the addresses of
witnesses in minutes of testimony. The new provisions do not relate to the
substantive elements of the crimes charged, but pertain only to the
procedure for adjudicating the criminal charges leveled against a defendant.
Consequently, the amendment is applied retrospectively and resolves the
dispute raised on appeal. See State v. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa 2008)
(holding subsequently enacted evidentiary statute applicable to retrial on
remand); State ex rel. Leas in re O’Neal, 303 N.W.2d 414, 419–20 (Iowa 1981)
(holding strictly procedural (nonsubstantive) changes in the law are applied
retrospectively).
3
We reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case to
the district court to consider the motion to compel under rule 2.11(12) as
amended. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals,
reverse the district court’s order requiring disclosure of the home addresses
of the witnesses, and remand the case for further proceedings.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT
ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.
This opinion shall be published.