Consequence Instruction. Many of Becker’s arguments in favor of a consequence instruction are not specific to the facts of his case. Because these general arguments could apply to any defendant asserting an insanity defense, we will treat these arguments as a categorical challenge- to a district court’s refusal to give a consequence instruction. We now turn to the question of whether due process requires a district court give a consequence instruction whenever the defendant requests one. Becker has cited a list of cases supporting the proposition “that the Iowa Constitution provides significant protection of individual rights.” However, only one of the cases cited by Becker, State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010), actually involved a due process claim. See Cox, 781 N.W.2d at 761, 768 (<HOLDING>). Cox cited heavily to State v. Reyes, 744
holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred holding that the due process clause contained in the colorado constitution encompasses a guarantee of equal protection holding that the existing exceptions to rule 404bs general bar against the admission of propensity evidence allow for the introduction of both prior and subsequent bad acts evidence holding that the due process guarantee of the iowa constitution prohibits admission of prior bad acts evidence based solely on general propensity holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged