Court Opinion

ID: 9664943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:34:49.099706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:11.301717
License: Public Domain

SCHLEGEL, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully, but vigorously, dissent. The majority’s decision of the jury instruction issue suffers from two glaring faults: it purports to decide an issue of statutory construction, but fails to analyze the statute; and it “discovers” the intent of the Iowa legislature by looking to case law from foreign jurisdictions. When this issue is analyzed correctly, it becomes clear that the trial court erred and failed to properly instruct the jury.
The issue presented to this court is whether sadomasochistic activity is “a sport, social or other activity” within the meaning of the statute. The majority opinion answers in the negative, but makes no attempt, in this case of first impression, to define “social or other activity.” Although we need not try to give a definition that will settle all future questions, we should provide some guidance for lower courts. Such guidance can only be given by analyzing the statute.
The majority avoids analyzing the statute by searching for, and “discovering” the legislative intent behind the statute. While our ultimate goal is to ascertain legislative intent, Emmetsburg Ready Mix Co. v. Norris, 362 N.W.2d 498, 499 (Iowa 1985), I believe that the proper first step in achieving that goal is to look to the words of the statute itself. The majority skips that step. Instead, it examines case law from other jurisdictions. Even that would not be grounds for dissent if the cases cited by the majority construed a statute that was similar to the Iowa statute. Unfortunately, the four cases cited in the majority opinion do not construe a similar statute. In fact, one of the cases cited by the majority was a homicide prosecution. Martin v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 1009, 37 S.E.2d 43 (1946). Because those cases are dissimilar from this case, all that can be gleaned from them are the general principles that *309the State has an interest in protecting individuals from violence, and an interest in preventing breaches of the peace. Those principles do not, by themselves, resolve the issue presented by this case.
The statutory provision in question states:
Provided, that where the person doing any of the above enumerated acts, and such other person, are voluntary participants in a sport, social or other activity, not in itself criminal, and such act is a reasonably foreseeable incident of such sport or activity, and does not create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or breach of the peace, the act shall not be an assault.
I believe the legislature’s choice of the words “sport, social or other activity,” — especially the nonspecific word “other”— shows an intent to make this exception applicable to a broad range of activities. Any public policy concerns about making the exception too broad are taken care of by the clauses that deny the exception to any activity that is “in itself criminal,” or that “create[s] an unreasonable risk of serious injury or breach of the peace.”
When the words “sport, social, or other activity” are analyzed together with the rest of the exception, it can be seen that the legislature, instead of listing all activities to which consent can be a defense, created a flexible framework that protects society’s interest. The words “social or other activity” are not to be strictly construed. The limiting language of the statute, which is designed to protect individuals from violence and to prevent breaches of the peace, is found in the clauses following the words “social or other activity.” I would therefore hold that sadomasochistic activity is “other activity” within the meaning of the statute.
Whipping a person with a belt, the actual activity involved in this case, is not “itself illegal.” Nor do a swollen lip, large welts, and severe bruises constitute a serious injury within the meaning of Iowa Code section 702.18 (1988). Thus, the acts of the defendant are not, as a matter of law, outside of the protection of the statutory defense of consent. A jury question on the issue, however, does exist.
It was the trial court’s duty to instruct the jury fully and fairly. State v. Sallis, 262 N.W.2d 240, 248 (Iowa 1978). The requested instruction was proper, and the trial court’s failure to submit it to the jury was reversible error.