State of Iowa
v.
Jason Michael Pirie
The defendant seeks further review after the court of appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence for third-degree theft. The defendant argues the court of appeals erred in finding that the admission of indirect hearsay statements was harmless error and in finding that defendant did not preserve error on his challenge to the district court’s use of remote proceedings for sentencing without his consent and without first obtaining his waiver of in-person sentencing.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Jason Michael Pirie
Attorney for the Resister
Louis S. Sloven
Attorney for the Applicant
Leah Patton
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Jan 21, 2025 1:30 PM
Briefs
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Joseph McCarville, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Buller, P.J., Bower, S.J., and Gamble, S.J. Opinion Per Curiam. Partial dissent by Gamble, S.J. (27 pages)
Jason Pirie challenges his conviction and sentence for third-degree theft, an aggravated misdemeanor. He argues (1) the judge should have granted his motion to recuse based on the judge’s prior representation of Pirie in two criminal matters and a recent statement made by the judge that raised a question regarding his impartiality; (2) the district court erred in allowing hearsay testimony from a police officer during the criminal trial; (3) the district court should have granted his motion for new trial based on the unavailability of a material witness; (4) the district court violated his rights by conducting a remote sentencing proceeding without first obtaining his waiver of the right to in-person sentencing; and (5) the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a consecutive prison term for the crime of stealing $55 worth of alcohol. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Pirie’s conviction—we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Pirie’s motion to recuse; while we assume without deciding the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony, it was not reversible error because the evidence of Pirie’s guilt is overwhelming; and we do not consider Pirie’s new-trial argument because he failed to preserve error. Because Pirie failed to preserve error as was required on his remote-sentencing claim and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence, we affirm Pirie’s sentence. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I concur with the parts of the per curiam opinion dealing with recusal and unavailability of a witness. However, I respectfully dissent on the issues of hearsay and remote sentencing. I would reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial because the district court erroneously admitted implied hearsay on the central issue of identification, which was prejudicial to Pirie. If I reached the sentencing issue, I would also find Pirie was not required to preserve error on the remote sentencing procedure. Because I believe the district court did not obtain Pirie’s consent to remote sentencing, I would remand for in-person sentencing.