State v. Steinly
Annotate this CaseOn May 8, 2012, legislative amendments to the Indigent Defense Act (IDA) became effective. The amendments override the Supreme Court’s construction of the prior version of the IDA by precluding an indigent defendant in a criminal action from retaining private counsel while requesting public defense resources from the government. In the instant criminal case, Defendant was charged with four first-degree felonies. About one month after the 2012 amendments to the IDA became effective, Defendant, who was represented by private counsel, filed a motion requesting government-funded defense resources under the pre-amendment version of the IDA. The district court granted the motion, determining that the earlier version of the statute applied because the IDA amendments were substantive and because the pre-amendment version was the one in effect at the time of Defendant’s alleged offenses. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the 2012 version of the IDA should apply in this case because the conduct being regulated by the IDA is the exercise of a mature right to indigent defense resources, and the law in effect at the time that Defendant exercised that mature right was the amended version of the IDA; and (2) the 2012 amendments, as applied to this case, are constitutional.
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.