State of Iowa
v.
Annette Dee Cahill
Annette Cahill seeks further review after the court of appeals affirmed her conviction for second-degree murder. Cahill argues the court of appeals (1) erred in finding that the hair evidence was not material to the issue of defendant’s guilt, (2) erred in its application of Brady and its progeny, and (3) erred in overlooking the fantastical elements of the testimony proffered at trial by one of the state’s witnesses.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Annette Dee Cahill
Attorney for the Resister
Louis S. Sloven
Attorney for the Applicant
Elizabeth A. Araguas
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Feb 23, 2022 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Date Amended:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Patrick A. McElyea, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Opinion by Doyle, J. (16 pages)
Annette Cahill appeals the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found her guilty of second-degree murder. She challenges the court’s rulings on the State’s failure to disclose evidence and the court’s refusal to exclude the testimony of three witnesses at trial. Cahill also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict and contends her constitutional rights were violated by the twenty-six-year delay between the crime and her arrest. OPINION HOLDS: The district court did not err in its denial of Cahill’s post-trial motion to compel DNA testing. Cahill did not establish a Brady violation by the State regarding a laboratory report provided mid-trial. The district court did not err in denying Cahill’s Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.104 motions to exclude prosecution witnesses’ testimony. The district court did not err in denying Cahill’s motion for new trial since sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Cahill’s due process rights were not violated by the pre-accusation delay in prosecution.