State v. Satern

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that substantial compliance with section 321J.6 is sufficient if the purposes underlying section 321J.6's procedural requirements “were not compromised”
• holding it was not a surprise or unfair to the defendant for the state to pursue a theory of aiding and abetting at trial when the charging document did not refer to aiding and abetting
• applying law of accomplice liability under § 707.6A(3), injury by vehicle
• applying law of accomplice liability under § 707.6A(3), injury by vehicle
• owner of and passenger in vehicle convicted as an accomplice where he “turned over” the driving to another
• a defendant need not be charged as both principal and accomplice for state to pursue conviction on aid and abet theory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).