Skip to main content

State v. Coffin

Citations

  • 504 N.W.2d 893
  • 1993 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 203
  • 1993 WL 327223

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury on extortion as an alternative to second- degree robbery because there was “no dissimilar element in the greater offense.”
  • holding district court did not err when it refused to submit a lesser included offense instruction when there was complete identity of the elements between the crimes of extortion, a class “D” felony, and second-degree robbery, a class “C” felony
  • “Comparing element one of second-degree robbery with element three of extortion, we note that ‘intent to commit’ coincides with ‘for the purpose of.’ Both connote specific intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McGiverin, Schultz, Lavorato, Neuman, Andreasen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.