Establishing Principled Interpretation Standards in Iowa's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Jurisprudence

• Author: Elisabeth A. Archer
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.A., Luther College, 2011
• Pages: 323-360

Establishing Principled Interpretation Standards in Iowa’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Jurisprudence Elisabeth A. Archer  ABSTRACT: In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court decided State v. Bruegger , dramatically changing the court’s cruel and unusual punishment precedent under article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution. Prior to Bruegger , the court interpreted article I, section 17 in lockstep with federal Eighth Amendment interpretation, deeming the two provisions identical in scope, import, and purpose. However, Bruegger inexplicably altered this precedent by applying article I, section 17 more stringently than the Eighth Amendment. Defendants in Iowa began seeking heightened protection under the Iowa Constitution—protection Bruegger’ s new interpretation seemingly afforded. When the Iowa Supreme Court decided State v. Null and State v. Pearson on August 16, 2013, and State v. Lyle on July 18, 2014, it solidified Bruegger’ s standardless interpretation and again failed to enunciate a principled basis for interpreting article I, section 17 independent of the Eighth Amendment. These recent cases do not explain what in the Iowa Constitution justifies the new interpretation, or how the new interpretation will be applied to future cases. By evaluating the problems resulting from Null , Pearson , and Lyle , demonstrating several bases supporting adherence to federal interpretation, and suggesting alternative methods of interpretation, this Note demonstrates why the Iowa Supreme Court should reject Null , Pearson , and Lyle ’s standardless interpretation and adopt a principled basis for independent interpretation of article I, section 17 in the future.  J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2015; B.A., Luther College, 2011. I would like to thank all who chipped in throughout the writing process, especially the writers and editors of Volumes 99 and 100 of the Iowa Law Review for their tremendous dedication and skill. A special thank you to my parents, Roger and Lisa Archer, and my brother Christian, because without their support, this Note would not have been possible. 324 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:323 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 325 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 329 A. T HE B IRTH OF P ROHIBITIONS A GAINST C RUEL AND U NUSUAL P UNISHMENT .......................................................................... 329 1. The Ratification of the Eighth Amendment ............... 329 2. Barron v. Baltimore : The United States Supreme Court’s Refusal to Apply the Bill of Rights to Restrict State Action ............................................................................. 330 3. The Ratification of Article I, Section 17 ...................... 331 4. Robinson v. California : The United States Supreme Court’s Decision to Apply the Eighth Amendment to Restrict State Action ...................................................... 333 B. T HE I OWA S UPREME C OURT ’ S C RUEL AND U NUSUAL P UNISHMENT P RECEDENT U NDER A RTICLE I, S ECTION 17 .............................. 334 1. Adherence to Federal Interpretation: The Pre- Bruegger Era ................................................................................. 334 2. First Deviation from Federal Interpretation: State v. Bruegger ........................................................................... 335 3. Realignment with Federal Interpretation: State v. Oliver ............................................................................... 336 III. THE IOWA SUPREME COURT’S STANDARDLESS NEW INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 17................................ 337 A. T HE I OWA S UPREME C OURT ’ S S ECOND D EVIATION FROM F EDERAL I NTERPRETATION .................................................................... 338 1. State v. Null : The Application of Federal Interpretation “Under” the Iowa Constitution .................................... 338 2. State v. Pearson : The Solidification of Null ’s New Strand of Interpretation............................................................ 340 3. State v. Lyle : The Expansion of Null and Pearson ’s Standardless Interpretation .......................................... 342 B. J UDICIAL F EDERALISM D OES N OT J USTIFY THE I OWA S UPREME C OURT ’ S N EW I NTERPRETATION OF A RTICLE I, S ECTION 17 ...... 344 1. Failure to Accept Interpretive Responsibility Contravened Judicial Federalism ................................. 345 2. Failure to Uphold the Integrity of the Iowa Constitution Contravened Judicial Federalism ................................. 346 C. S TANDARDLESS I NTERPRETATION C REATES U NCERTAINTY ........ 347 1. Creates Uncertainty for the Iowa Legislature in Propagating Future Sentencing Laws .......................... 347 2. Creates Uncertainty for Judges, Lawyers, and Citizens in Future Litigation ........................................................... 350 2014] IOWA’S CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT JURISPRUDENCE 325 IV. THE IOWA SUPREME COURT SHOULD ADOPT PRINCIPLED STANDARDS FOR INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 17 ..... 352 A. T HE T EXTUAL B ASIS FOR A DHERING TO F EDERAL I NTERPRETATION .................................................................... 352 1. Article I, Section 17 of the Iowa Constitution is Materially Identical to the Eighth Amendment .......... 352 2. Survey of Eighth Amendment Counterparts in State Constitutions ................................................................. 353 a. States Adhering to Federal Interpretation Due to Textual Similarities ................................................................ 354 b. States Adhering to Federal Interpretation Despite Textual Differences ................................................................. 355 B. P RINCIPLED I NTERPRETATION S TANDARDS FOR D EVIATING FROM F EDERAL I NTERPRETATION WHEN THE N EED A RISES ................. 356 1. State v. Gunwall : The “Principled Basis” Six-Factor Test ................................................................................. 357 2. State v. Jorgensen : The “Sound Reasons” and “Legal Deficiency” Tests ........................................................... 358 V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 359 I. INTRODUCTION With increasing concerns about limited budgets, declining judicial resources, and overcrowded dockets, one would not expect the state’s highest court to openly invite criminal defendants to challenge their sentences, but that is exactly what the Iowa Supreme Court has done. 1 Instead of following federal interpretation under the Eighth Amendment—as it had in past decisions—or using principled standards to diverge from that interpretation, in State v. Null , State v. Pearson , and State v. Lyle , 2 the Iowa Supreme Court engaged in a standardless method of decision-making that does not align with federal precedent. 3 As a result, 425 juvenile inmates in Iowa may now have 1. State v. Pearson, 836 N.W.2d 88, 104 (Iowa 2013) (Mansfield, J., dissenting); see Mark S. Cady, Chief Justice, Iowa Supreme Court, 2011 State of the Judiciary 1–2 (Jan. 12, 2011), available at www.iowacourts.gov/wfdata/files/StateofJudiciary/StateoftheJudiciary2011.pdf (remarking on how “deep cuts in . . . resources are beginning to cause damage to our system of justice”). 2. While recognizing that the Iowa Supreme Court’s deviation from Eighth Amendment precedent began with State v. Bruegger , this Note focuses primarily on the standardless interpretation and decision-making that followed in State v. Null and State v. Pearson and was most recently expanded in State v. Lyle . When mentioned collectively, this Note will hereinafter refer to State v. Null , State v. Pearson , and State v. Lyle as the Null triad. 3. State v. Lyle, No. 11-1339, slip op. at 3 (Iowa July 18, 2014); State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 70 (Iowa 2013); Pearson , 836 N.W.2d at 96 (majority opinion). 326 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 100:323 the opportunity to challenge their sentences. 4 However, only 36 of these sentences fell under the holding of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama , 5 a holding to which the Iowa Supreme Court purportedly adhered. 6 Judges, lawyers, and citizens in Iowa must now face the uncertainty this standardless interpretation created, and the State of Iowa itself must now deal with the tremendous impact this “flurry of new proceedings” will have on accessibility to the state judicial system and its resources. 7 While “time and expense should be irrelevant if constitutional rights are affected. . . . [T]hese should be primary considerations when deciding to impose . . . a new sentencing practice that has no basis in this state’s constitution.” 8 The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the Iowa Constitution prohibit imposing cruel and unusual punishment on citizens. 9 The states ratified the Eighth Amendment in 1791, 10 but the amendment originally restricted only federal action, leaving citizens unprotected from state action inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. 11 Shortly after the United States Supreme Court decided Barron v. Baltimore , which affirmed that the Eighth Amendment did not apply to the states, the 4. Pearson , 836 N.W.2d at 104 (Mansfield, J., dissenting). At the time of the decision, data from the Iowa Department of Human Rights indicated 425 inmates in Iowa prisons were serving time for offenses they committed before reaching eighteen years of age. Id. (citing IOWA DEP’T OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DIV. OF CRIMINAL & JUVENILE JUSTICE PLANNING, CURRENT INMATES UNDER 18 AT TIME OF OFFENSE (May 31, 2013), available at http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/ images/pdf/Prison_Population_Juveniles_05312013.pdf). Of those 425 inmates, only 36 were serving life-without-parole sentences. Id. The United States Supreme Court’s...