State of Iowa v. Brian Todd Thompson

── State of Iowa v. Brian Todd Thompson ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 25–0145 Submitted February 19, 2026—Filed May 22, 2026 State of Iowa, Appellee, vs. Brian Todd Thompson, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Celene Gogerty, judge. A defendant appeals his convictions for two counts of theft by deception, arguing that the jury instructions misstated an element of the offense. Affirmed. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman, McDonald, and May, JJ., joined. Oxley, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which McDermott, J., joined. Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson (argued) and Cory Engle (until withdrawal), Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.  2 Mansfield, Justice. I. Introduction. “From the example of the past, the present acts prudently so as not to imperil the future.” An Allegory of Prudence, Nat’l Gallery, https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/titian -an-allegory-of- prudence [https://perma.cc/8KY5-UFDV] (last visited May 13, 2026). This statement was written by the Italian artist Titian in the sixteenth century, but it could apply to our job as state supreme court justices in the twenty-first century. In this case, we are asked to hold under the Iowa Constitution that when a jury instruction omits or mischaracterizes an element of an offense, we should reverse and give the defendant a new trial automatically. In fact, we should do so even if the error had no impact on the defendant’s trial. Our past example has been not to follow this practice. As an appellate court, we do not reverse for instructional errors—including omission and mischaracterization errors—when the error is harmless. We believe our existing precedent, which complies with the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, also complies with the Iowa Constitution. It is consistent with Iowa’s constitutional history and assures that the defendant’s jury trial will be fair. And the defendant’s alternative proposal, we fear, would imperil the future by spurring unnecessary appeals and new trials over minor perceived defects in jury instructions. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence.  3 II. Facts and Procedural History. The defendant is charged in this case with posing as a bail bondsman and luring a detainee’s girlfriend into paying him two separate installments of $3,000 each for a cash-only bond that didn’t exist. In early 2023, Cody McCall was in the Poweshiek County Jail, facing two criminal charges and being held subject to a $25,000 cash-only bond. McCall wanted to be bonded out, but he also had a parole violation, and he needed to wait until that matter was resolved. He spoke with his then-girlfriend Mary Wahl about making arrangements for bonding him out in late May when he expected his parole obligation to be discharged. Wahl searched on Google for a bondsman, and the name of Brian Thompson came up first. In the listing, Thompson’s name was associated with the bonding company Custom Solutions Investigations (CSI). In reality, Thompson had ceased working for CSI six months earlier. Wahl called the number listed and reached a “Gilbert,” who said Thompson was still with CSI and gave Thompson’s direct contact information to Wahl. After some back-and-forth communication,