State v. Decanini-Hernandez
| Decision Date | 17 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-2120,19-2120 |
| Citation | 957 N.W.2d 724 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otoniel DECANINI-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
R.E. Breckenridge of Breckenridge Law P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Heard by May, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
A jury convicted Otoniel Decanini-Hernandez of possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, Decanini-Hernandez argues (1) the district court erred in failing to suppress statements Decanini-Hernandez made without the benefit of Miranda1 warnings and (2) the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that one of the State's witnesses faced drug-related charges. We affirm.
Sergeant Darren Dennler is a twenty-four-year veteran of the Washington County Sheriff's Department. On the night of February 1, 2019, Dennler was dispatched to investigate a report of "shots fired at a hog shed in the southeast part of the county." Dennler understood he would be the only officer responding to the scene.
As Dennler approached the scene, he observed a maroon vehicle that was suspected to be involved with the shooting. Dennler saw the vehicle pull into the driveway of a residence. Dennler pulled up behind the vehicle and turned on his cruiser's "scene lights," which are white lights (not the "red and blues"). Dennler used these lights because "[i]t was dark."
Two occupants exited the maroon vehicle. Dennler commanded them to approach his cruiser and put their hands on the hood. He gave this command because, given the nature of a "shots fired" call, Dennler was worried for his safety. As Dennler explained, "I have two suspects that are possibly armed, and I'm by myself with back-up kind of, probably, fifteen minutes away."
The two suspects—later identified as Decanini-Hernandez and a Scott Crow—obeyed Dennler's commands. While approaching the cruiser, Crow asked Dennler "if this was about the gunshots or the shooting, them shooting earlier." Dennler said it was. Dennler asked where the gun was. Crow advised that the gun—a rifle—was in his car, the maroon vehicle. Dennler patted them down "to ensure safety, that they had no weapons." Dennler found no weapons on them, but he did find marijuana and paraphernalia in Crow's jacket. Decanini-Hernandez confirmed that the residence was his.
While Dennler waited for back-up to arrive, he began the process of determining whether someone had actually been shooting at the hog barn. He asked Crow and Decanini-Hernandez "where they were doing the shooting at." Crow responded, "in the backyard." Dennler asked "toward what?" Decanini-Hernandez responded by pointing behind himself, in the direction of his residence. Crow explained they were shooting at a tree in a field behind the residence. Decanini-Hernandez added "there's a pond back there."
After a few minutes, another officer arrived and secured the rifle. Additional officers arrived soon after. One of them was Deputy Nathan Schmuecker, who is also with the Washington County Sheriff's Department. After checking in with Sergeant Dennler, Schmuecker contacted dispatch and requested a "CCH," or check of criminal history. The CHH would reveal, among other things, whether Crow or Decanini-Hernandez "had a disqualifier that does not allow them to possess a firearm."
Meanwhile, Crow and Decanini-Hernandez remained in front of Dennler's cruiser. But with the rifle secured—plus several additional officers present—the mood at the scene became more relaxed. Crow and Decanini-Hernandez were allowed to put their hands in their pockets. Video footage from Dennler's cruiser shows Crow and Decanini-Hernandez chatting with officers. Decanini-Hernandez can be seen laughing, talking with his hands, and walking around on and near the driveway.
Eventually—the video evidence shows—Crow and Decanini-Hernandez took officers back behind the residence to where the shooting occurred. They all walked together as a group. Crow led the way while the officers and Decanini-Hernandez followed. At times, Decanini-Hernandez walked behind at least one officer.
At trial, two of the officers explained about what happened during this trip behind the residence. Sergeant Dennler testified as follows:
Deputy Schmuecker testified follows:
(Emphasis added.)
After several minutes, the group came back from their trip behind the residence. Crow and Decanini-Hernandez resumed standing around and chatting with law enforcement officers. Again, video evidence shows Decanini-Hernandez laughing, talking with his hands, walking around on and near the driveway, and putting his hands in his pockets.
Perhaps fifteen or twenty minutes later, dispatch provided Schmuecker with an important piece of information: Decanini-Hernandez had a felony conviction in Texas. Schmuecker learned this information while sitting in his cruiser, which was parked behind Dennler's. After learning this, Schmuecker walked back to the front of Dennler's cruiser, where Crow and Decanini-Hernandez were still chatting with officers. Schmuecker then confirmed with Crow and Decanini-Hernandez that each had fired the rifle. Schmuecker then confronted Decanini-Hernandez by saying, "You, sir, are a felon." At that point, Decanini-Hernandez denied shooting the rifle. Instead, Decanini-Hernandez explained that he had only held and aimed the rifle.
Later that evening, officers arrested Decanini-Hernandez for possession of a firearm by a felon, a class "D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(1) (2019). Soon after, the State filed a trial information charging the same offense.
Decanini-Hernandez filed a motion to suppress statements he made to police without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Following a hearing, the district court entered an order granting the motion in part and denying it in part. The court declined to suppress statements made by Decanini-Hernandez before Deputy Schmuecker asked questions concerning Decanini-Hernandez's "prior [felony] conviction and being a felon in possession of a weapon." The court reasoned that, up until those questions were asked, Decanini-Hernandez "was not placed in custody." But the court suppressed statements made by Decanini-Hernandez after Deputy Schmuecker began asking those questions.
As trial approached, the State filed motions in limine. Among other things, the State asked the court to exclude "improper impeachment evidence," namely, evidence that Crow faced charges for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Decanini-Hernandez resisted, claiming he should be able to cross-examine Crow about the charges because they would impact his motives in testifying. The court granted the State's motion.
At trial, Decanini-Hernandez stipulated to his prior felony conviction. So the only disputed issue was whether he had possessed a firearm, the rifle found in Crow's vehicle. As already discussed, the State called Sergeant Dennler and Deputy Schmuecker. The State also called Crow. Consistent with his statements at the scene, Crow confirmed that Decanini-Hernandez had fired the rifle.
After the State finished its direct examination of Crow, Decanini-Hernandez asked the court to reconsider its prior ruling excluding evidence of the drug-related charges against Crow. In support, Decanini-Hernandez made an offer of proof by questioning Crow. Relevant portions are excerpted here:
To continue reading
Request your trial