State v. Hurlburt
Annotate this Case
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of operating while intoxicated after a trial at which Defendant did not appear, holding that a court may conduct a criminal trial on a misdemeanor criminal charge without the defendant present for any portion of the trial.
At the first day of Defendant's trial on a misdemeanor charge Defendant requested a continuance, claiming that he could not find a ride to court to attend his trial. The district court denied the motion to continue and, after a two-day trial held to give Defendant the opportunity to appear, found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in holding that Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.27 permitted trial to proceed without Defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.