STATE OF IOWA v. ZACHARY RYAN JAMES (2017)

This case is a companion case to State v. Russell, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2017), also filed today. This case raises the same legal propositions ¹ as those in Russell. Specifically, the district court order in this case prevented James from issuing an ex parte subpoena duces tecum and provided,

Defendant shall not [serve] or deliver any subpoena on any person or entity for any purpose other than to secure the attendance of that person or entity as a witness at a deposition, on notice to all parties, pursuant to I.R.Crim.P. Rules 2.13(1) or (2) or Rule 2.13(2)(b) or to secure the attendance of a witness at trial or other court hearing.

We granted James's application for discretionary review. Since the same legal reasoning and opinion in Russell fully applies here, our opinion here is controlled and governed by our opinion in Russell. For the reasons set forth in Russell, the decision of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The defendant also raises the question of the right to confrontation under the United States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution, which was not raised in Russell, ___ N.W.2d at ___. However, the defendant did not raise this issue in his motion to reconsider the district court's ruling, and therefore raises it for the first time on appeal. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, including constitutional issues, and therefore error was not preserved on this claim. State v. Derby, 800 N.W.2d 52, 60 (Iowa 2011).

ZAGER, Justice.