In the Interest of C.L.C. Jr., Minor Child,c.L.C. Jr., Minor Child, Appellant.

Decision Date30 March 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–1748.,09–1748.
PartiesIn the Interest of C.L.C. JR., Minor Child,C.L.C. Jr., Minor Child, Appellant.
CourtIowa Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Rachel Antonuccio of Cole & Vondra, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellant.Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, Janet Lyness, County Attorney, and Patricia A. Weir, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.Heard by VOGEL, P.J., and DOYLE and TABOR, JJ.DOYLE, J.

C.C., a minor, appeals from a juvenile court order adjudicating him to have committed the delinquent acts of carrying a weapon in violation of Iowa Code 724.4(1) (2009) and reckless use of a firearm in violation of section 724.30(4). He claims the juvenile court erred in denying his requests for a private investigator and depositions at the State's expense and finding he committed the delinquent acts beyond a reasonable doubt. He additionally claims the district associate judge should have recused himself from the adjudicatory proceedings. We reverse and remand.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

C.C. was a member of a group of Cedar Rapids teens known as the Hard Body Soldiers. Other members included C.C.'s childhood friends, P.J. and R.G., as well as their friends K.S., A.J., and A.S. On the night of August 5, 2009, the group decided to drive to Iowa City to their friend T.W.'s house. While there, two members of a rival group in Iowa City known as the Broadway Goons showed up. They challenged the Hard Body Soldiers to a fight at a nearby park.

R.G., K.S., and A.S led the way. P.J, A.J., and C.C. followed behind them. As the group approached the park, they could see the Broadway Goons outnumbered them. Someone from the Hard Body Soldiers fired gunshots into the air, and the teens scattered. The Hard Body Soldiers retreated to T.W.'s house and piled into two different cars with some of their female friends. As they were driving away, members of the Broadway Goons fired shots at them. A neighbor called the police.

The Hard Body Soldiers drove back to A.J.'s house in Cedar Rapids where C.C., P.J., and A.S. spent the night. On the way there, T.W.'s friend, I.D., who was riding with A.J., P.J., and K.S., saw a gun in her friend S.C.'s purse. She told S.C. about the gun and heard S.C. tell someone to [g]et that gun out of my purse.” The gun has not been seen since.

The next day, P.J. sent C.C. text messages saying, [W]e was on the news, and they tried to say that I was the one that was shooting.... But it's all cool; they can't prove that it was me.” Later that day, C.C. texted T.W. that he was “sorry for putting [her] in this situation.” He went on, “I wasn't thinking last night. I don't want you to start feeling different about me because of all this bullshit.” C.C. then instructed the other members of the group to keep quiet about what had happened.

A police investigation into the shooting led to the detention of C.C.'s friends R.G. and P.J. T.W. was also questioned and threatened with a charge of participating in a riot. All three eventually identified C.C. as the person who had fired the gunshots from their group. On August 31, 2009, C.C. was detained and charged with participating in a riot and disorderly conduct. The petition was later amended to include charges for carrying a weapon and reckless use of a firearm.

At the detention review hearing, District Associate Judge Stephen C. Gerard II found:

Competent, reliable evidence establishes [C.C.] as the shooter in this case, establishes him as the person transporting other persons to Iowa City to engage in this conduct. I believe he may seek retribution against those who are, in the Court's opinion, telling the truth about what happened that night and that, as long as these situations remain unresolved, the child, the community, and other juveniles are at serious risk.

The Court orders that [C.C.] remain in detention pending further proceedings.

Following that hearing, C.C.'s court-appointed attorney filed a motion on September 16, 2009, requesting the juvenile court to appoint a private investigator at State expense. The court summarily denied the motion. At the pretrial conference on September 24, the State listed twenty-one witnesses it intended to call at the adjudicatory hearing scheduled for October 12. The court denied C.C.'s prehearing requests to depose those witnesses at State expense.

The case proceeded to an adjudicatory hearing before Judge Gerard, at the beginning of which C.C. admitted to having participated in a riot. The court accepted his admission, and the State dismissed the disorderly conduct charge. Evidence was then presented on the two remaining charges, which centered on the question of which member of the Hard Body Soldiers fired the gunshots at the fight on August 5, 2009.

R.G. was the first member of the group to testify. He stated he did not see who fired the gunshots because they came from behind him. He also denied having seen a gun in anyone's possession that night. Yet R.G. admitted he identified C.C. as the shooter in a written statement he provided to the juvenile court in his own delinquency case “based on what everybody else is saying.” He testified he was “worried about the shooting being pinned” on him. R.G. stated he was told by his lawyer, and by P.J., that he and P.J. would be released from detention if they said C.C. was the shooter.

T.W. testified next. Like R.G., she stated she never saw a gun or who fired it. In response to a question from the prosecutor, she reluctantly testified that C.C. told her he was the shooter. She acknowledged on cross-examination that she had been charged with participating in a riot and part of the reason she was charged was because she was not “giving up the shooter.”

The State called P.J. to testify after T.W. P.J. stated that as he and his friends were walking towards the Broadway Goons, he heard one gunshot. He was asked, “And did the gunshot come from the Hard Bodies?” P.J. stated, “Yeah.” The prosecutor then asked him, “And who had the gun?” After a long pause, P.J. responded, “Could you ask me another question?” The court recessed the proceedings and asked to see counsel in his chambers.

The hearing resumed on the record with the court providing the following statement:

When the Court took a recess, the Court invited counsel into chambers. Once in chambers and after closing the door, the Court requested that Ms. Antonuccio and her client [C.C.] reconsider the situation that the Court believed they were creating. After watching the witnesses all very reluctantly and having a very hard time, based upon their friendships and associations with the minor child, answering questions truthfully, the Court suggested to Ms. Antonuccio that she speak with her client about simply telling the truth and discontinuing the process of inflicting this terrible emotional distress on his friends.

The Court observed [T.W.] take an approximately three-minute period of time to answer the question about what the minor child said to her about being the shooter. The Court observed [P.J.] crying when confronted with his dilemma of telling the truth, which would implicate his friend, or not telling the truth.

The Court has watched [C.C.] as he has stared down, in the Court's opinion, his friends on the stand, as he intended to communicate to them what his belief was as to their testimony.

C.C.'s attorney responded,

I don't think you asked me to speak to my client; you told me that I needed to tell him to tell the truth. And he has an absolute right to this trial and to an impartial arbitrator in this trial. And for you to tell me that ... he has to tell the truth, which in your opinion means tell everyone that he's the shooter, makes it very clear to me that you cannot be impartial.

The court disagreed, stating,

Well, Ms. Antonuccio, I've already heard evidence; and the evidence I've heard is persuasive, even if I hear no further evidence. I was impartial when I started this trial.... I want to know the truth, too.

And as I have watched the emotional distress that these witnesses have experienced by having to sit here and testify against your client, their friend, I have concerns for those children....

And I did—I do want to correct that I didn't suggest; I said you need to talk to your client about telling the truth.

....

MS. ANTONUCCIO: I think I would like to say further, Your Honor, that this is not the first time that you've told me that I need to tell my client to tell the truth. You've said that to me multiple times ex parte throughout the course of this proceeding, which already concerned me about your ability to be impartial.

... [I]f this trial continues in front of you, it's a mockery; you've made your decision. You ostensibly said that, that you've heard enough at this point.

THE COURT: Are you asking me to recuse myself?

MS. ANTONUCCIO: I am.

The court called another recess to take the motion under advisement, following which it denied the request, stating:

Having carefully considered the request to recuse, the Court finds that the Court personally will have absolutely no difficulty being fair and impartial and giving due consideration to all of the evidence introduced during the trial. This Court will consider and determine the credibility of the testimony of each witness and make a decision based only upon the facts proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.

P.J. resumed his testimony, stating that C.C. had the gun and fired the shots. He denied being intimidated by C.C., but said, “I feel like I've been a snitch; but—I mean, because we had grew up together and that's like family to me.” On cross-examination, P.J. denied having seen the gun, though he admitted that he was walking right next to C.C. when it was fired. He also denied having spent the night at A.J.'s house even though other witnesses had said he stayed there.

The State also presented the testimony of D.W., a member of the Broadway Goons. He...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • In re Interest of D.C.
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 16 Mayo 2018
    ..., 694 N.W.2d 748, 751 (Iowa 2005). Generally, our review of juvenile delinquency proceedings is de novo. See In re C.L.C., Jr. , 798 N.W.2d 329, 334–35 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). Still, we review subsidiary motions such as the denial of a motion to continue and motion for new trial for an abuse ......
  • In re E.G.
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 23 Noviembre 2011
    ...hearings are special proceedings that provide an ameliorative alternative to the criminal prosecution of children. In re C.L.C. Jr., 798 N.W.2d 329, 334 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). We review juvenile court orders de novo. Id. at 334-35. We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court......
  • In re J.L.W.
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 24 Abril 2013
    ...supreme court in In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d 46, 52 (Iowa 2013). We continue to review delinquency proceedings de novo. In re C.L. C, Jr., 798 N.W.2d 329, 334–35 (Iowa Ct.App.2011). “We give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court, especially regarding the credibility of witnesses, ......
  • State v. Holmes
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • 11 Febrero 2015
    ...Iowa Constitution. As an intermediate appellate court, we must follow the precedents of the Iowa Supreme Court. See In re C.L.C., 798 N.W.2d 329, 335 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). ...
  • 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