Court Opinion

ID: 9658405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:58:41.463427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:54.688052
License: Public Domain

STUART, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the reversal but cannot agree with the implication that an instruction which stated the established law at the time it was given without objection constitutes reversible error because the law has been changed while the case is on direct review. See the special concurrence in State v. Wisniewski, Iowa, 171 N.W.2d 882, 888.
I do not view this situation as one involving the retroactivity of our decision in State v. Bester, Iowa, 167 N.W.2d 705, 706-707. Defendant properly preserved his objection and has raised this issue on appeal. If Bester had not already been decided, this case would in all probability announce the principles set out in Bester. Bester is now additional authority for defendant’s position. He, of course, could not be denied the benefit of a properly raised issue because we have in the interim between trial and appeal decided another case on the same issue in support of his position.
MOORE, C. J. and LARSON, J., join in this special concurrence.