More Categories

Rule 2.22 – Verdict

May 13, 2021 | Criminal Procedure, Iowa

2. 22(1)Form of verdicts. The jury must render a verdict of “guilty,” which imports a conviction, or “not guilty,” “not guilty by reason of insanity,” or “not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility,” which imports acquittal, on the charge. The jury shall return a verdict determining the degree of guilt in cases submitted to determine the grade of the offense.
2. 22(2)Answers to interrogatories. It must also return with the general verdict answers to special interrogatories submitted by the court upon its own motion, or at the request of the defendant in prosecutions where the defense is an affirmative one, or it is claimed any witness is an accomplice, or there has been a failure to corroborate where corroboration is required.

Where a defendant is alleged to be subject to the minimum sentence provisions of Iowa Code section 902.7, (use of a dangerous weapon), and the allegation is supported by the evidence, the court shall submit a special interrogatory concerning that matter to the jury.

2. 22(3)Finding offense of different degree; included offenses. Upon trial of an offense consisting of different degrees, the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the degree charged in the indictment or information, and guilty of any degree inferior thereto, or of an attempt to commit the offense when such attempt is prohibited by law. In all cases, the defendant may be found guilty of any offense the commission of which is necessarily included in that with which the defendant is charged.
2. 22(4)Several defendants. On an indictment or information against several defendants, if the jury cannot agree upon a verdict as to all, it may render a verdict as to those in regard to whom it does agree, on which a judgment shall be entered accordingly, and the case as to the rest may be tried by another jury. Upon an indictment or information against several defendants, any one or more may be convicted or acquitted.
2. 22(5)Return of jury; reading and entry of verdict; unanimous verdict; sealed verdict. The jury, agreeing on a verdict unanimously, shall bring the verdict into court, where it shall be read to them, and inquiry made if it is their verdict. A party may then require a poll asking each juror if it is the juror’s verdict. If any juror expresses disagreement on such poll or inquiry, the jury shall be sent out for further deliberation; otherwise, the verdict is complete and the jury shall be discharged. When the verdict is given and is such as the court may receive, the clerk shall enter it in full upon the record. In any misdemeanor case in which the defendant is not in custody at the time of trial and the parties agree, the court may permit the return of a sealed verdict. The sealing of the verdict is equivalent to rendition in open court, and the jury shall not be polled or permitted to disagree with the verdict. A sealed verdict and the answer to each interrogatory shall be signed by all jurors, sealed, and delivered by the court attendant to the clerk of court, who shall enter it upon the record and disclose it to the court as soon as practicable.
2. 22(6)Verdict insufficient; reconsideration; informal verdict. If the jury renders a verdict which is in none of the forms specified in this rule, or a verdict of guilty in which it appears to the court that the jury was mistaken as to the law, the court may direct the jury to reconsider it, and it shall not be recorded until it is rendered in some form from which the intent of the jury can be clearly understood. If the jury persists in finding an informal verdict, from which, however, it can be understood that the intention is to find for the defendant upon the issue, it shall be entered in the terms in which it is found, and the court must give judgment of acquittal.
2. 22(7)Defendant discharged on acquittal. If judgment of acquittal is given on a general verdict of not guilty, and the defendant is not detained for any other legal cause, the defendant must be discharged as soon as the judgment is given.
2. 22(8)Acquittal on ground of insanity or diminished responsibility; commitment hearing.

a. Jury finding. If the defense is insanity or diminished responsibility, the jury must be instructed that, if it acquits the defendant on either of those grounds, it shall state that fact in its verdict.
b. Commitment for evaluation. Upon a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished responsibility, the court shall immediately order the defendant committed to a state mental health institute or other appropriate facility for a complete psychiatric evaluation and shall set a date for a hearing to inquire into the defendant’s present mental condition. The court shall prepare written findings which shall be delivered to the facility at the time the defendant is admitted fully informing the chief medical officer of the facility of the reason for the commitment. The chief medical officer shall report to the court within 15 days of the admission of the defendant to the facility, stating the chief medical officer’s diagnosis and opinion as to whether the defendant is mentally ill and dangerous to the defendant’s self or to others. The court shall promptly forward a copy of the report to the defendant’s attorney and to the attorney for the state. An extension of time for the evaluation, not to exceed 15 days, may be granted upon the chief medical officer’s request after due consideration of any objections or comments the defendant may have.
c. Independent examination. The defendant may have a separate examination conducted at the facility by a licensed physician of the defendant’s choice and the report of the independent examiner shall be submitted to the court.
d. Return for hearing. Upon filing the report required by this rule or the filing of any subsequent report regarding the defendant’s mental condition, the chief medical officer shall give notice to the sheriff and county attorney of the county from which the defendant was committed and the sheriff shall receive and hold the defendant for hearing. However, if the chief medical officer believes continued custody of the defendant at the facility is necessary to ensure the defendant’s safety or the safety of others and states that finding in the report, the court shall make arrangements for the hearing to be conducted as soon as practicable at a suitable place within the facility to which the defendant was committed.
e. Hearing; release or retention in custody. If, upon hearing, the court finds that the defendant is not mentally ill and no longer dangerous to the defendant’s self or to others, the court shall order the defendant released. If, however, the court finds that the defendant is mentally ill and dangerous to the defendant’s self or to others, the court shall order the defendant committed to a state mental health institute or to the Iowa security and medical facility and retained in custody until the court finds that the defendant is no longer mentally ill and dangerous to the defendant’s self or to others. The court shall give due consideration to the chief medical officer’s findings and opinion along with any other relevant evidence that may be submitted.

No more than 30 days after entry of an order for continued custody, and thereafter at intervals of not more than 60 days as long as the defendant is in custody, the chief medical officer of the facility to which the defendant is committed shall report to the court which entered the order. Each periodic report shall describe the defendant’s condition and state the chief medical officer’s prognosis if the defendant’s condition has remained unchanged or has deteriorated. The court shall forward a copy of each report to the defendant’s attorney and to the attorney for the state.

If the chief medical officer reports at any time that the defendant is no longer mentally ill and is no longer dangerous to the defendant’s self or to others, the court shall, upon hearing, order the release of the defendant unless the court finds that continued custody and treatment are necessary to protect the safety of the defendant’s self or others in which case the court shall order the defendant committed to the Iowa security and medical facility for further evaluation, treatment, and custody.

2. 22(9)Proof necessary to sustain verdict of guilty.

a. Reasonable doubt. Where there is a reasonable doubt of the defendant being proven to be guilty, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal.
b. Reasonable doubt as to degree. Where there is a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense of which the defendant is proved to be guilty, the defendant shall only be convicted of the degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt.

Iowa. R. Crim. P. 2.22

66GA, ch 1245(2), § 1301; 67GA, ch 153, § 64, 65; amendment 1980; amendment 1982; 1984 Iowa Acts, ch 1323, § 5; amendment 1999; Report November 9, 2001, effective February 15, 2002