Opinion ID: 1309955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge.

Text: In Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 714 (Iowa 1974), we said the first Sisco requirement, determination of defendant's understanding of the charge, has two aspects. The judge must explain the charge to the defendant and he must inquire into defendant's understanding of it. In our view, this requirement has not been met. A vital element of the § 713.3 crime is that defendant knowingly not have any arrangement, understanding, or funds with the bank    upon which the check    is drawn sufficient to meet or pay the same. State v. Mullin, 225 N.W.2d 305, 307 (Iowa 1975); State v. Lansman, 245 Iowa 102, 106, 60 N.W.2d 815, 817 (1953); see II IBA Uniform Jury Instruction No. 510.2. This element was omitted from the information which may account for the judge's failure to mention it when he attempted to inform defendant concerning the elements of the offense. It is no answer to say the court was not required to discuss each element of the offense in order to determine defendant's understanding of the crime. State v. Hackett, 201 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa 1972). In this instance trial court, for defendant's instruction, did set out to tick off the elements of the offense which the State was required to prove and omitted one of the most important. An affirmative answer relating to defendant's understanding based on that court-administered misadvice should not support a conviction. Nor is it reasonable to suggest the element the court omitted is in some obscure manner subsumed under the other elements mentioned by the court. Knowingly not having any arrangement is an element separate from and additional to the intent to defraud element of a § 713.3 offense. Our decisions have plainly identified it as one of the three distinct and necessary elements. State v. Mullin, supra, 225 N.W.2d at 305; State v. Mason, 203 N.W.2d 292, 295 (Iowa 1972); State v. Johnson, 196 N.W.2d 563, 565 (Iowa 1972). We further observed the elements are clearly set out in those decisions without use of the words utter,uttered, or uttering, employed by trial court. Utter, as it appears in § 713.3 and in the court's colloquy, is an ancient word with precise legal implications, see Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1716 (rev. 4th ed. 1968), and its use would probably not contribute to the ordinary layperson's understanding of the crime charged. Defendant was never directly asked what he did, or whether he had an account in the Wisconsin bank when he wrote the check, or any arrangement or understanding with the bank to honor the check. Such questions, if asked, might have developed his knowledge and understanding of the offense in this regard. In fact, as above indicated, he was never directly asked if he understood the charge or had any questions concerning it. While such questions are not mandated in every situation, Brainard v. State, supra at 715, they will sometimes invoke responses which will support an affirmance where the question is close. State v. Sargent, 210 N.W.2d 656, 659 (Iowa 1973). Although a different Sisco requirement was at issue in Ryan v. Iowa State Penitentiary, Ft. Madison, 218 N.W.2d 616, 617 (Iowa 1974) it should be noted in that instance the element missing here was contained in the information grounded on § 713.3 and was read to defendant. The present situation is also unlike State v. Hansen, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1974) where the defendant acknowledged, in response to a court inquiry, that he had received and read a copy of the indictment and understood the charge and where the statute itself was read to him. On the record set out above, defendant's understanding of the nature of the charge is not apparent. There is no indication defendant under[stood] the law in relation to the facts. Brainard v. State, supra, 222 N.W.2d at 714. The case must therefore be reversed and remanded with directions to set aside the conviction and sentence and permit defendant to plead anew.