State v. Cordero, No. 12–2122.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtCADY, Chief Justice.
Citation861 N.W.2d 253
Decision Date20 March 2015
Docket NumberNo. 12–2122.
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Mario GUERRERO CORDERO, Appellant.

861 N.W.2d 253

STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Mario GUERRERO CORDERO, Appellant.

No. 12–2122.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 20, 2015.


861 N.W.2d 255

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jaki L. Livingston, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Opinion

CADY, Chief Justice.

In this appeal involving convictions for first-degree murder and attempt to commit murder, the defendant asserts numerous claims of error arising out of his trial and sentencing. These claims included insufficiency of evidence to support the convictions, trial court error in refusing to give a jury instruction, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and insufficient reasons for the imposition of consecutive sentences. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals addressed all the issues on appeal and affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. On further review, we only address the issue concerning the jury instruction. The issue presented is whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to give a jury instruction at trial on the defense of intoxication under the record in this case. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm in part and vacate in part the opinion of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment and sentence of the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Mario Guerrero Cordero lived in Des Moines in 2008. He was distantly related to Miguel and Manuel Cano Basurto, brothers who also lived in Des Moines. Miguel and Manuel worked at an automobile repair shop called El Tarasco's. In May 2008, Guerrero Cordero damaged a truck belonging to a customer of the shop when he struck it with his vehicle after entering the parking lot. Miguel demanded that Guerrero Cordero pay for the damage. Guerrero Cordero failed to pay, which upset Miguel and caused tension

861 N.W.2d 256

between the two men. This tension reached a tipping point on Independence Day of that year.

On the morning of July 4, Miguel and Manuel went to work at El Tarasco's. After friends arrived at the shop, the brothers stopped working and began to socialize with them. The fellowship included the consumption of beer. Guerrero Cordero also arrived at the shop, and Miguel and Manuel asked him to leave. Guerrero Cordero and Miguel began to argue, and eventually, Miguel insulted Guerrero Cordero's family and challenged him to a fight. However, no physical confrontation occurred, and Guerrero Cordero left the shop without incident.

After leaving El Tarasco's, Guerrero Cordero went to an automotive repair shop owned by Rogelio Carlos Basurto, another distant cousin. While Guerrero Cordero was at Basurto's shop, Guerrero Cordero displayed a handgun and ammunition to those present before placing the gun in his waistband. When he and Basurto left the shop together to buy beer, Guerrero Cordero told Basurto that he had wanted to shoot Miguel the other day, but did not do so because they were family. Basurto told Guerrero Cordero he should not think about hurting family and that the gun would only bring him trouble. Basurto left the shop late in the afternoon. Guerrero Cordero was still present. He was drinking beer, but Basurto did not believe he was drunk. At some point, Guerrero Cordero returned to El Tarasco's, where Miguel again asked him to leave. He complied with the request. Manuel subsequently saw Guerrero Cordero at an apartment complex in the early evening and told him not to return to the shop until he could talk with Miguel.

Despite the admonition, Guerrero Cordero returned to El Tarasco's once again.1 Upon entering the shop, he said, “What's up?” He then pulled the gun from his waistband and fired several shots at Miguel. Miguel was hit by three shots and fell to the floor. Guerrero Cordero then began firing at the others gathered in the shop, who had begun to flee. As Guerrero Cordero turned to leave the shop, he shot Hector Casillas, hitting him in the foot and causing him to fall. Casillas continued to flee, and Guerrero Cordero shot him again, this time in the back as he ran away. Guerrero Cordero then fled the scene. Casillas was taken to the hospital for surgery and survived. Miguel died of his wounds shortly after he was transferred to the hospital trauma center.

Police executed a search warrant on Guerrero Cordero's home on July 5. They found ammunition and the pants he had worn the previous day. Two days later, Guerrero Cordero's roommate led police to a buried handgun, which forensics testing was later able to match as having fired five bullets recovered at the scene, including one removed from Miguel's body. The police also discovered Guerrero Cordero had purchased a ticket to Mexico under an assumed name and left Des Moines. They subsequently began a lengthy process of obtaining an international warrant for the arrest of Guerrero Cordero. Three years later, in 2011, Mexican authorities arrested Guerrero Cordero on the international warrant. He was eventually extradited to the United States.

The State of Iowa charged Guerrero Cordero with first-degree murder and attempt to commit murder. At trial, testimony was presented about the consumption

861 N.W.2d 257

of alcoholic beverages on July 4 by the persons present at El Tarasco's and Basurto's. Miguel and many of the persons who spent the day at El Tarasco's were intoxicated by the time the shooting started. There were coolers of beer at the shop and numerous beer cans. Multiple witnesses testified that Guerrero Cordero had been drinking beer during the day, but nearly all of them said he was not intoxicated or did not appear intoxicated. Not all witnesses were asked at trial if they believed Guerrero Cordero was intoxicated. Only one witness, who had never met Guerrero Cordero before and was himself intoxicated at the time of the shooting, testified Guerrero Cordero was “probably” intoxicated. Photographs of the inside of Guerrero Cordero's truck revealed an unopened can of beer and unopened bottle of beer, as well as a single open can of beer in the cup holder. The investigating officer did not question the witnesses after the shooting about the level of intoxication of those present at the time of the shooting, but did note every witness he talked with was coherent and able to form sentences to describe what had occurred.

At the close of the State's evidence, Guerrero Cordero moved for a judgment of acquittal on both charges. He claimed the evidence failed to establish he had the specific intent to commit either crime based on either intoxication or provocation. The trial court denied the motion.

At the close of all of the evidence at trial, Guerrero Cordero requested a jury instruction on the defense of intoxication. This was the first time the defense was formally raised. The court denied the request. It found the evidence did not rise to the level to support an intoxication instruction. Guerrero Cordero also renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied.

The jury found Guerrero Cordero guilty of the first-degree murder of Miguel Cano Basurto and the attempt to commit the murder of Hector Casillas. For the conviction of murder in the first degree, the court sentenced Guerrero Cordero to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. For the conviction of attempt to commit murder, the court sentenced Guerrero Cordero to twenty-five years in prison with parole eligibility after serving seven-tenths of the sentence. The court ordered the sentences be served consecutively.

Guerrero Cordero appealed and raised four claims. First, he asserted the evidence was insufficient to allow a reasonable finder of fact to conclude he committed the crimes of first-degree murder and attempt to commit murder. Second, he argued the trial court erred in denying his request to instruct the jury on the defense of intoxication. Third, he contended the trial court erred by giving insufficient reasoning for its decision to impose consecutive sentences. Finally, he claimed trial counsel was ineffective in failing to notify the State of his intent to rely on intoxication as a defense.

We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. It denied the claims of insufficiency of the evidence, sentencing abuse of discretion, and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court found the trial court erred in refusing to give the requested intoxication instruction, but concluded Guerrero Cordero was not prejudiced by the refusal because he still presented his defense on intoxication to the jury. We granted Guerrero Cordero's request for further review.

II. Standard of Review.

“We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors at

861 N.W.2d 258

law.” State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70, 73 (Iowa 2013) ; see also Iowa R.App. P. 6.907. Yet, “[w]e review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant's requested...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • State v. SR, No. 16-0061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...unless it results in prejudice to the complaining party." State v. Hoyman, 863 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 257-58 (Iowa 2015)). "When the error is not of constitutional magnitude, the test of prejudice is whether it sufficiently appears that the rights......
  • Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No. 14–1058.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 10, 2016
    ...amounts because other dates in January show total precipitation as “T,” standing for “trace.”3 See, e.g., State v. Guerrero Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 258 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 431 (Iowa 2014) ; Asher v. OB–Gyn Specialists, P.C., 846 N.W.2d 492, 496 (Iowa 2014) ; Hag......
  • State v. SR, No. 16-0061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...unless it results in prejudice to the complaining party." State v. Hoyman , 863 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Cordero , 861 N.W.2d 253, 257–58 (Iowa 2015) ). "When the error is not of constitutional magnitude, the test of prejudice is whether it sufficiently appears that the rig......
  • State v. Hoyman, No. 14–0262.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 1, 2015
    ...the appeal.II. Standard of Review. “We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors at law.” State v. Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 257–58 (Iowa 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Error in giving or refusing to give a jury instruction does not warrant reversal unless i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • State v. SR, No. 16-0061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...unless it results in prejudice to the complaining party." State v. Hoyman, 863 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 257-58 (Iowa 2015)). "When the error is not of constitutional magnitude, the test of prejudice is whether it sufficiently appears that the rights......
  • Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., No. 14–1058.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 10, 2016
    ...amounts because other dates in January show total precipitation as “T,” standing for “trace.”3 See, e.g., State v. Guerrero Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 258 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 431 (Iowa 2014) ; Asher v. OB–Gyn Specialists, P.C., 846 N.W.2d 492, 496 (Iowa 2014) ; Hag......
  • State v. SR, No. 16-0061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 30, 2017
    ...unless it results in prejudice to the complaining party." State v. Hoyman , 863 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Cordero , 861 N.W.2d 253, 257–58 (Iowa 2015) ). "When the error is not of constitutional magnitude, the test of prejudice is whether it sufficiently appears that the rig......
  • State v. Hoyman, No. 14–0262.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 1, 2015
    ...the appeal.II. Standard of Review. “We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors at law.” State v. Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 257–58 (Iowa 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Error in giving or refusing to give a jury instruction does not warrant reversal unless i......
  • 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