Commonwealth v. Valdivia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding the appellee did not preserve an issue for appeal because he “did not file an appeal or cross-appeal on the issue”
• distinguishing restitution in the form of pecuniary damages paid to the victim from the penalty component of restitution
• stating in a restitution case while ultimately ruling against the defendant that “[w]e adhere to the rule of lenity, which guides us to resolve ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the accused”
• providing the statutory term “person” includes the government pursuant to Iowa Code section 4.1
• “Questions of statutory interpretation . . . are reviewed for correction of errors at law.”
• “The victim deserves to be fully compensated for the injury by the actor who caused [the damages].” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).