State v. Goodson

• Decision Date: 30 April 2021
• Docket Number: No. 18-1737,18-1737
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Mario GOODSON, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

958 N.W.2d 791

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Mario GOODSON, Appellant.

No. 18-1737

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted November 18, 2020

Filed April 30, 2021

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, Brian Williams, County Attorney, and Israel Kodiaga and Michelle Wagner, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.

Appel, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

APPEL, Justice.

In this case, Mario Goodson appeals his conviction following a jury trial on charges of first-degree burglary, in violation of Iowa Code section 713.3 (2016); operating a motor vehicle without its owner's consent, in violation of Iowa Code section 714.7 ; domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b ) ; and third-degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(a ).

The criminal charges arose from an altercation on December 23, 2016, between Goodson and his former partner, A.T., at A.T.’s home. During the trial the State introduced evidence of Goodson's prior acts. The evidence included a neighbor's testimony about a previous altercation between Goodson and A.T., a videotape of an altercation between Goodson and A.T. outside of A.T.’s place of employment, and testimony about an arrest warrant issued for Goodson as a result of the altercation outside of A.T.’s place of employment.

Goodson claims on appeal that prior act evidence was improperly admitted solely to show propensity. He also asserts that his conviction of first-degree burglary and third-degree sexual abuse should merge. In addition, Goodson claims the trial judge should have recused himself from both the trial and the hearings on posttrial motions. Finally, he argues his sentence is illegal because it specifies a duration for sex offender registry obligations.

For the reasons stated below, we affirm Goodson's convictions, reverse the illegal portion of Goodson's sentence, and remand for resentencing.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

A. Introduction. Goodson and A.T. began a romantic relationship sometime around November 2014. The relationship broke up on three occasions but the parties got back together. The two lived together in A.T.’s residence during some portions of the relationship.

In early summer 2015, Goodson and A.T. broke off their relationship and Goodson moved out. But, later that summer, when A.T. found out she was pregnant with Goodson's child, Goodson moved back to live with A.T. Their child was born in March 2016.

In July, Goodson once again left the residence, but moved back in September. On December 8, a conflict between Goodson and A.T. occurred at A.T.’s work. On December 23, a second altercation occurred at A.T.’s home, the second altercation led to the criminal charges in this case.

The State brought four criminal charges against Goodson: first-degree burglary in violation of Iowa Code section 713.3 (2016), operating a motor vehicle without its owner's consent in violation of Iowa Code section 714.7, domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b ), and third-degree sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1). A jury returned a verdict of guilty on all charges. The sentencing court imposed terms of incarceration on each count and ran them concurrently resulting in a twenty-five-year prison term with an eighty-five percent mandatory minimum.

B. Proceedings Before the District Court.

1. Introduction. At trial, Goodson and A.T. presented contrasting stories about what happened on December 23, 2016, and the events leading up to it. The central issue for the jury was whether to believe the version of the event given by A.T. or by Goodson.

2. A.T.’s version of the December 23 events at trial. A.T. testified she returned home on December 23, and as she opened the door, Goodson was in the doorway and pulled her into the residence. A.T. stated that Goodson was agitated, threatened her, and hit her several times when she was in the bathroom, breaking a mirror. A.T. asserted she attempted to escape through the front door, but Goodson blocked the door with a coffee table. A.T. said she attempted to retrieve a mace gun that she had purchased for protection, but Goodson was able to prevent her from utilizing it. However, the mace gun hit the ground and exploded, spraying onto A.T., Goodson, and the baby.

A.T. said Goodson forced her into the basement, seized her phone, and became angry about text messages she had sent to other men. A.T. declared that she was eventually able to regain control of her phone and smashed it on the concrete floor, which created momentary calm. Then, A.T. said she and the baby showered to remove the mace; Goodson eventually joined. A.T. said she and her baby went to take a nap while Goodson cleaned up the house.

A.T. said Goodson came into the room where she and the baby were napping and again became angry about the other men. A.T. testified that Goodson then sexually assaulted her. At some point during the altercation, Goodson's leg was injured, and he left to get his leg examined by a doctor. A.T. said Goodson took her car without her permission. After Goodson left, A.T. said she was able to call the police and the police came to investigate.

3. Goodson's version of the December 23 events at trial. Goodson had a different story at trial than A.T. According to Goodson, he was in A.T.’s home packing up some of his clothing to take with him to a job interview in Las Vegas. Goodson testified that he previously interviewed for a job in Las Vegas and discussed moving to Las Vegas with A.T. and each of their children. Goodson said A.T. was not interested in the idea of moving and became angry whenever Goodson brought up the topic. Goodson testified that when A.T. returned home, she went down to the basement and Goodson told A.T. that he was packing some clothes for another job interview in Las Vegas, to which A.T. responded with frustration.

Goodson said they both went upstairs to the bathroom to pack toiletries and then A.T. started an argument. Goodson contends that A.T. said she did not need to have a relationship with Goodson, and showed Goodson conversations on her phone with other men with whom she had relationships. Goodson admitted he got "pissed" and punched the bathroom mirror but did not intentionally hit A.T. He conceded, however, that he may have hit her by accident.

Goodson testified that A.T. then attempted to get a mace gun because she was angry with him, and as he wrestled the gun away from her, the gun exploded. After the explosion, Goodson said he was concerned about the baby and that all three should shower to remove the mace. Goodson then said he reconciled with A.T. and they ultimately had consensual sex. Goodson said that he went to the doctor to get his leg examined, and while he was at the doctor, he received a phone call from his mother telling him not to return to A.T.’s house because the police had been called.

4. Admission of prior acts evidence. Over the objection of Goodson, the State offered and the district court admitted testimonial evidence of Goodson's prior acts to support A.T.’s account of the December 23 events and to establish a pattern of abusive behavior by Goodson towards A.T. The district court admitted evidence regarding two prior events. First, the district court admitted evidence of a confrontation between A.T. and Goodson that occurred on December 8, roughly two weeks prior to December 23. Second, the district court admitted evidence from a neighbor of A.T.’s who testified that he saw Goodson punch A.T. in the face after an argument that occurred several months prior to December 23.

Regarding the December 8 incident, A.T. testified that she had told Goodson by text or phone of a relationship she was forming with another man. A.T. testified that after she told Goodson of the relationship, he said that he was going to kill her. A.T. said she was concerned by Goodson's statements and believed Goodson might come to her work to confront her. A.T. said she looked into the parking lot and did not see Goodson's car, so she left. A.T. said that as she walked to her car, she heard an engine and turned to see Goodson's mother's car. A.T. then testified that Goodson jumped out of the car, ran after her, and threatened her—eventually forcing her into his car. Within the car, A.T. said she and Goodson had an argument in which Goodson was verbally and physically abusive towards her. A.T. said she was able to convince Goodson to let her leave his car, and after she left, she went to stay at her mother's house. A.T. said she filed a police report about the altercation and was careful over the next several weeks to make sure she did not run into Goodson. A.T. said she primarily stayed at her mother's house throughout the time period.

In addition to the testimony of A.T., the district court admitted other evidence related to the December 8 incident. The district court admitted a video of the December 8 events. The district court further admitted a 911 phone called made by A.T. on December 23 where she recounted that an arrest warrant had been issued for Goodson after the December 8 incident.

Goodson had a different version of the December 8 events. According to Goodson, the altercation was misconstrued. Goodson testified that he simply came to talk with A.T. about their relationship on December 8. He asserted there was no threatening or assaultive activity.

The district court also admitted testimony from a neighbor of A.T., one Jacob Miller. According to Miller, several months prior to December 23, he observed Goodson punch A.T. in the face after a verbal argument.

5. Posttrial motions. After trial, Goodson filed a motion for a new trial alleging an appearance of impropriety because of the trial judge's interaction with several jurors. The judge denied...