Carter v. Carter

Citation957 N.W.2d 623
Decision Date19 March 2021
Docket NumberNo. 18-0296,18-0296
Parties Billy Dean CARTER, Bill G. Carter, and the Estate of Shirley D. Carter, by and through Bill G. Carter, Executor, Appellees, v. Jason CARTER, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Allison F. Kanne (argued) of Wandro & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, and Christine E. Branstad (argued) and Nathan A. Olson of Branstad & Olson, Des Moines, for appellant.

Mark E. Weinhardt (argued) and David N. Fautsch of the Weinhardt Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellees.

Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all participating justices joined. Appel and Mansfield, JJ., took no part in the consideration or the decision of the case.

CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice.

In this case the defendant, Jason Carter (Jason), was civilly accused by his father, Bill Carter (Bill), and brother, Billy Carter (Billy), of intentionally shooting his mother, Shirley Carter (Shirley), and causing her death. Before the trial began, the Iowa Department of Criminal Investigations (DCI) agreed to share certain information from its investigation on the murder with the parties in response to a subpoena served on it by the plaintiffs. A jury determined Jason was civilly liable. The state then subsequently charged Jason with first-degree murder. As a result of discovery during that criminal proceeding, the state provided Jason with exculpatory evidence.

Jason appeals from his civil case and argues the district court erred by: (1) denying his motion for continuance until law enforcement decided whether to prosecute him; (2) denying his motion to quash the plaintiffs’ subpoena to DCI; (3) denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; (4) dismissing his first petition to vacate the judgment; (5) denying his motion for recusal; and (6) dismissing his second petition to vacate the judgment as time-barred. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jason's motion for continuance, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, first petition to vacate the judgment, and motion for recusal. Jason's motion to quash the subpoena to DCI was properly denied, and the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to hear his second petition to vacate the judgment because it was untimely.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Shirley farmed with her husband, Bill, in Marion County. Early in the morning of July 19, 2015, the couple left their farmhouse to get coffee together. Afterward, Bill dropped Shirley off back at the house. A neighbor saw Bill leave the home around 7:45 a.m. He was taking a load of corn in a semitrailer to a processing facility about an hour drive away in Eddyville, Iowa. He arrived at the processing facility at 9:01 a.m. and left at 9:22 a.m. He stopped at a Casey's General Store in Lovillia, Iowa, at 9:54 a.m. and then drove to a farm where he rented land to reload his semitrailer with corn. As Bill was driving back home, he received a call from his daughter, Jana Lain, telling him that Jason called her and said he found Shirley dead at the home but he wouldn't call 911. Bill called 911 as he rushed back to the house.

Jason is a farmer like his parents and was also taking a load of corn to Eddyville that morning. His truck was seen exiting the processing facility at approximately 9:58 a.m. He went to a different farm, where he sometimes parked, to drop off his tractor trailer. He then drove his pickup truck back to his parents’ home. Jason called his sister at 11:08 a.m. to tell her that their mother was dead in the home. He called 911 at 11:11 a.m. and told the operator his mother was dead and that she seemed to have been on the floor for two hours. He also stated there was a hole through the floor and in the refrigerator. At some point, Jason hid the second cell phone he had for texting a woman he was having an affair with in the engine compartment of his vehicle. Bill arrived at the house shortly after Jason called 911. It was later determined that Shirley had been fatally shot twice.

Shirley's family was allowed back into the farmhouse two days after her death. The family found evidence DCI had missed, including a gun safe stored in the basement of the house. One gun was missing from the safe—a .270 Remington high-powered rifle. DCI collected the gun safe. Investigators determined that the bullet fragments collected from the crime scene had been fired from a high-powered rifle. Bill had shot the missing .270 rifle into an earthen bank once, and law enforcement was able to recover bullets from the location. A criminalist concluded that the fragments from the crime scene were consistent with coming from a high-powered rifle in the .270–.280 caliber range. The missing rifle has not been located to date. Jason told law enforcement that he had never touched the gun safe or known his parents had one until Shirley's death. Bill on the other hand thought Jason and his wife had given the gun safe to him as a gift. Ultimately, Jason's fingerprints were found on the gun safe. The location of some of the fingerprints was consistent with that of someone assembling the gun safe.

On January 5, 2016, approximately six months after Shirley's death, the plaintiffs Bill and Billy, through the Estate of Shirley Carter, filed this suit against Jason and alleged he shot her causing her death. At this point no criminal charges were pending. On July 5, the plaintiffs served a subpoena to DCI requiring it to produce the entire law enforcement investigation file on Shirley's homicide. DCI filed a motion to quash the subpoena. On April 17, 2017, the plaintiffs met with DCI to discuss whether they would be willing to produce certain information. DCI agreed to produce certain documents to both the plaintiffs and Jason. The plaintiffs agreed to share information with DCI as well. As a result of the meeting, the plaintiffs served a second subpoena on DCI requesting the agreed-upon documents:

1. All documents, whether in print, audio, or video, reflecting or relating to any interview of or conversation with Jason Carter conducted by the DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriff's Office following the death of Shirley Carter on June 19, 2015.
2. All documents ... relating to any interview of or conversation with Bill G. Carter conducted by the DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriff's Office following the death of Shirley Carter on June 19, 2015.
3. Any report ... relating to any investigation by any agent of officer ... regarding the level of grain contained in Bill G. Carter's semi-tractor trailer on June 19, 2015.
4. All documents reflecting or relating to cell phone text messages made to and from [certain phone numbers] on or around June 19, 2015.
5. All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the processing of, and photography of, the home and premises in which Shirley Carter's death apparently occurred on June 19, 2015 by DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriff's Office. This item includes but is not limited to any sketch, diagram, or map of the home and/or premises.
6. All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the collection of, and the analysis of, fingerprint evidence gathered and processed by DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriff's Office from the home and premises in which Shirley Carter's death apparently occurred on June 19, 2015.
7. All documents reflecting or relating to reports of the collection of, and the analysis of, firearms and/or ballistics evidence gathered and processed by DCI and/or the Marion County Sheriff's Office from the home and premises in which Shirley Carter's death apparently occurred on June 19, 2015.
8. Transcripts of the depositions taken pursuant to I. R. Crim. P. 2.5(6) of Shelly Carter, Chase Carter, Cecil Harry, and Ginger Harry.
9. All security or other video evidence depicting Bill G. Carter at Casey's General Stores outlets in or near either Lovillia, Iowa or Milo, Iowa on June 19, 2015.1

Jason moved to quash the subpoena. On August 18, the district court denied the motion to quash. On December 5, the day trial was scheduled to commence, Jason moved to continue the trial until law enforcement made a final decision as to whether criminal charges would be filed. The district court denied the motion for continuance.

The jury trial began as scheduled on December 5. At the close of the plaintiffs’ case, Jason moved for a directed verdict on the plaintiffs’ negligence and battery claim. The district court granted his motion as to the negligence claim and denied his motion as to the battery claim. At the close of all evidence on the plaintiffs’ battery claim, Jason moved for a directed verdict. The court denied this motion. On December 15, the jury found Jason civilly liable for Shirley's murder, and on December 18 he moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On the same date, the state charged Jason criminally with first-degree murder. On February 14, 2018, the district court denied Jason's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Beginning in February, the state provided Jason with discovery in the criminal case. On March 21, he was acquitted of murder. On May 30, Jason filed a petition to vacate the judgment based on newly discovered evidence. The court held a two-and-a-half-day hearing on the petition. On January 31, 2019, the district court dismissed the petition. On August 30, Jason filed a second petition to vacate the judgment based on newly discovered evidence. While this petition was pending before the judge, Jason filed a motion for the judge to recuse herself due to an allegation that the judge had told an attorney Jason "was guilty as sin" and was seen speaking ex parte to the plaintiffscounsel in the courthouse during the civil trial. The district court denied Jason's motion for recusal and dismissed his second petition finding it lacked jurisdiction due to being filed past the one-year deadline contained in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1013. Jason...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • In re Hutchinson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2022
    ...action in equity as a common-law exception to the explicit deadline in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1013. Carter v. Carter , 957 N.W.2d 623, 645–46 (Iowa 2021).Also absent from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure is an explicit exception for an Iowa court to set aside a judgment at any time......
  • In re Marriage of Hutchinson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2022
    ...independent action in equity as a common-law exception to the explicit deadline in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1013. Carter v. Carter, 957 N.W.2d 623, 645- 46 (Iowa 2021). Also absent from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure is an explicit exception for an Iowa court to set aside a judgmen......
  • State v. Trane
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 6, 2023
    ...This is an objective test. Id. "Actual prejudice must be shown before recusal is necessary, and speculation is not sufficient." Carter, 957 N.W.2d at 644. judge's impartiality might be questioned when the judge "has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party." Id. (quoting Iowa Code § ......
  • In re The Subpoenas Issued to Dethmers Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 10, 2023
    ... ... certification must identify the date and time of any ... conference or attempts to confer ... Id. r. 1.517(5); see also Carter v. Carter, ... 957 N.W.2d 623, 634-35 (Iowa 2021) (noting obligation of ... plaintiffs' counsel to discuss scope of subpoena with ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT