State v. Doolin
Citation | 942 N.W.2d 500 |
Decision Date | 24 April 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 17-1715,17-1715 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Tony Eugene DOOLIN , Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender (until withdrawal), and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, Brian Williams, County Attorney, and Brad Walz, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective representation by failing to object to the crime victim's first-time, in-court identification of the defendant. Responding to a report of a fight involving an armed man, police arrested the defendant at the scene minutes later with his handgun. The victim gave a statement hours later that a man jumped in his car and threatened him at gunpoint before fleeing when officers arrived. The victim gave no detailed description and was never asked to identify his assailant that night, or through a photo array or lineup any time before trial. Two years later, the victim at trial identified the defendant seated at counsel table. Defense counsel vigorously cross-examined the victim regarding his first-time, in-court identification and during closing urged the jury to disregard his testimony as unreliable. The jury returned a guilty verdict on charges of felony assault, intimidation, and possession of a firearm.
The defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his first-time, in-court identification and also for failing to request the Iowa State Bar Association Instruction No. 200.45 on eyewitness identification. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed the convictions but preserved his ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction proceedings, concluding the record is inadequate to decide those claims on direct appeal. We granted the defendant's application for further review.
We find the record is adequate to decide Doolin's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his first-time, in-court identification, and we reject that claim on the merits. Our precedent permits first-time, in-court identifications, and most other courts have rejected due process challenges to first-time, in-court identifications. We elect to let the court of appeals decision stand on the remaining issues, and we affirm the district court judgment and sentence.
At 1:17 a.m. on August 15, 2015, Waterloo police officers responded to a report of a disturbance involving a man with a handgun at Flirts Gentlemen's Club. The caller described the offender as an African-American male wearing a black hat and black bandana. Officer Ryan Muhlenbruch arrived first at the scene and observed a man matching that description heading from Flirts to the adjacent parking lot. The suspect ducked behind a GMC Yukon, and Officer Muhlenbruch heard the sound of a heavy metallic object hitting the ground. The suspect was detained and identified as Tony Doolin. Police found a loaded Glock .40 caliber handgun underneath the Yukon and a black hat and bandana nearby.
Doolin admitted he owned the handgun and showed the officers his permit to carry it. Doolin claimed that a male in a white hooded sweatshirt had pulled a gun on him so he pulled his in self-defense. Officer Muhlenbruch observed that Doolin smelled like alcohol, slurred his speech, and had watery bloodshot eyes. Based on his nightly experience with intoxicated people, Officer Muhlenbruch determined Doolin was under the influence of alcohol. Doolin refused to perform any field sobriety test or submit to a preliminary breath test. Doolin was arrested and taken to the Black Hawk County jail.
At 2:30 a.m., Officer Ryan Jacobson arrived at Flirts to obtain security camera video. Dalibor Brkovic approached him to report that a man had pointed a gun at him in his vehicle earlier that morning. Brkovic said he drove to Flirts in a BMW x5 with two friends. The group planned to meet other friends at Flirts, including Zuhdija Menkovic and a part owner in Flirts. Brkovic was on the phone with Menkovic as he approached Flirts, and Brkovic asked him to come outside to meet him. As Menkovic walked outside, he noticed a crowd of people, including a man with a handgun. Brkovic parked, and his friends exited the vehicle. Menkovic watched the man holding the handgun run by him and get into the BMW's open passenger seat. This man offered Brkovic $100 for a getaway ride. Brkovic refused. The man pulled a gun, chambered a round, and stuck the end of the barrel into Brkovic's chest, telling the driver he did not have a choice.
Menkovic stood by the driver's door and saw his friend held at gunpoint. Several people gathered near the passenger door and talked to the assailant, presumably trying to dissuade him from shooting Brkovic, who had shut off the engine and pretended that he had thrown his keys to Menkovic. The man turned to Brkovic and said, "Drive." When told that Brkovic could not start the BMW without the key, the man called him a profane name, exited, and started running as police cars reached the parking lot. Brkovic estimated that the man held the gun to his chest for about twenty seconds.
After the man ran off, Brkovic went inside of Flirts for about an hour before he approached Officer Jacobson to report what happened. The police told him that they had arrested an individual in the west parking lot. Brkovic then went back into Flirts with his friends. The police contacted Brkovic around a half hour later asking him to go to the Waterloo Police Department to give a statement. Brkovic had gone to Perkins for breakfast, ordered, and refused to go to the station to give a statement until he finished his meal. Brkovic ultimately gave a statement at the station at around 4:30 a.m., just over three hours after he was held at gunpoint.
During that interview, Brkovic told the officer that he did not remember what the man was wearing because he was more focused on the pistol. Although officers had Doolin in custody at that time, they never arranged a line up or photo array to see if Brkovic could identify Doolin as his assailant. Brkovic left the station without providing much of a description of the man who had held him at gunpoint.
On September 29, Doolin was charged with intimidation with a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code section 708.6 (2015), assault while participating in a felony in violation of Iowa Code section 708.3, and carrying weapons in violation of Iowa Code section 724.4. The case proceeded to a jury trial on August 22, 2017, two years after the incident. Brkovic testified, and during his direct examination, he identified Doolin for the first time as the man who threatened him in his BMW.
Doolin's trial counsel did not object to Brkovic's first-time, in-court identification but cross-examined him.
Defense counsel noted Brkovic had not provided a detailed description the night of the incident.
Menkovic also testified at trial but declined to identify Doolin as the man he saw holding a gun on Brkovic.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walker v. Commonwealth
...1986) ; Garner v. People , 436 P.3d 1107, 1120 (Colo. 2019) (en banc ); Byrd v. State , 25 A.3d 761, 767 (Del. 2011) ; State v. Doolin , 942 N.W.2d 500, 511-12 (Iowa 2020) ; Fairley v. Commonwealth , 527 S.W.3d 792, 799-800 (Ky. 2017) ; State v. King , 156 N.H. 371, 934 A.2d 556, 561 (2007)......
-
State v. Watson
...Supreme Court. In State v. Doolin, for example, the Iowa Supreme Court expressly criticized the rationale in Dickson. 942 N.W.2d 500, 514 (Iowa 2020).47 In rejecting the defendant's due process argument, the Iowa Supreme Court relied on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Perry. I......
-
State v. Booth-Harris
...We acknowledge that "[t]he reliability of eyewitness identification can be affected by a number of variables." State v. Doolin , 942 N.W.2d 500, 510, 2020 WL 1966534 (Iowa 2020) (filed today). The additional factors that Booth-Harris argues should be considered when assessing reliability al......
-
People v. Posey
...Biggers applies to an in-court identification not preceded by an impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification”); Doolin, 942 N.W.2d at 543 (Appel, J., dissenting) (arguing that “Perry has no applicability first-time, in-court identification”) (italics omitted); Garner, 436 P.3d at 1121,......
-
50-State Survey of State Court Decisions Supporting Expert-Related Judicial Gatekeeping
...rely on Wigmore’s “engine” of cross-examination to establish reliability of . . . expert testimony, nor should we here. State v. Doolin, 942 N.W.2d 500, 546 (Iowa 2020) (citations and footnote omitted). Accord Taft v. Iowa Dist. Court, 828 N.W.2d 309, 316 (Iowa 2013) (“the district court fu......
-
Eyewitness identification
...Unfortunately, many state courts have declined to follow the holdings in Massachusetts and Connecticut. One example is State v. Doolin , 942 N.W.2d 500 (Iowa 2020). Doolin held that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a first time in-court identification because Iow......