State v. Graves
| Decision Date | 04 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-0358.,02-0358. |
| Citation | 668 N.W.2d 860 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Deon Monterill GRAVES, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. Stream, County Attorney, for appellee.
The defendant, Deon Graves, claims he received ineffective representation by his attorney in Graves' prosecution for manufacturing and possessing marijuana. Graves asserts his counsel should have objected when the prosecutor asked the defendant whether a police officer had fabricated the incriminating statements the officer testified the defendant had made upon his arrest. Graves also contends his attorney should have objected during closing arguments when the prosecutor repeatedly accused Graves of lying.
We conclude the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct and Graves' trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object. Because the probability of a different outcome had defense counsel appropriately challenged the prosecutor's actions is sufficient to undermine our confidence in the outcome of the trial, we hold the defendant has established prejudice. Therefore, we reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial.
On October 6, 2001, Officer Jason Steil of the Oskaloosa police department arrested Graves for driving while his license was under suspension. Another officer transported Graves to the police station. Meanwhile, the owner of the vehicle, Remos Quick, consented to Officer Steil's search of the trunk, where the officer found a dried up marijuana leaf and marijuana seeds. Quick then consented to the officer's search of Quick's residence, which he allegedly shared with Graves. Contraband found at this house led to criminal charges against Graves for manufacturing marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, including a sentencing enhancement based on second-offender status. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(d), .411(1) (2001).
Steil also said the defendant told him that he had lived with Quick for about a month and that he occupied the bedroom that had previously been identified by Quick. The officer testified that Graves then consented to Steil's search of his bedroom, if Graves could go along.
Steil told the jury that on their way to the house, Graves volunteered that he had $85 in a duffel bag in his room. When asked whether he had any scales, the defendant said he did not. Upon searching the bedroom, Steil discovered a duffle bag with $85 in it, a digital scale, and a box with a very small amount of marijuana in it. Clothes were strewn around the room, consistent with someone living there.
Steil said that other officers searching two bedrooms in the upper level of the house found rolled up aluminum foil. He testified the foil was significant because drug manufacturers use it to cover windows to keep light out when drying marijuana. Steil also testified the scale found in the main floor bedroom was of a type used to weigh marijuana.
Although Steil said he thought he had discovered an active marijuana sales operation, on cross-examination he acknowledged that he had not found the type of lighting typically used for growing marijuana, had not found any packaging that appeared to be used for selling marijuana, and had not found any packaged product. Steil also admitted he had not videotaped his conversation with Graves at the police station, even though the equipment to do so was available; he explained he did not have a tape.
Over the defendant's objection, the prosecution was allowed to introduce into evidence the officer's report to rebut the implication that the officer had not documented his conversation with Graves. Steil had prepared the report within a day or two of Graves' arrest. The narrative portion of the report was substantially the same as Steil's testimony.
Upon completion of Steil's testimony, Graves testified on his own behalf. He said he did not live with Quick but had simply stored some of his personal belongings in the first floor bedroom when he moved out of his apartment in the fall of 2001. Graves testified he stayed overnight at Quick's house only occasionally between August 2001 and the date of Steil's search. According to Graves, he primarily slept at another friend's apartment. Graves asserted he had no access to Quick's basement, but did keep a Sony Playstation in the living room of the residence.
Graves confirmed his arrest by Officer Steil on October 6, 2001. He said that an hour or so after he was taken to the jail, Steil arrived and informed the defendant that he—Steil—had found marijuana at Quick's residence. According to Graves, he—Graves—denied that he had a bedroom at Quick's house; Graves told the officer that he only had some property stored in a room there. The defendant testified that when Steil asked to search Graves' "properties," Graves consented so long as Graves could go along.
The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the shoebox or scales found in the bedroom. He said the $85 was his money, wages from his employment. He testified he had cash because he did not have a checking account. Graves also contradicted Steil's testimony concerning the marijuana stalks in the basement. Graves testified that when Steil questioned him about this marijuana, he told Steil what Quick had said about finding the marijuana in a ditch. Graves said he did not participate in picking or transporting the stalks of marijuana and denied he had ever admitted any involvement to Steil. The defendant also denied any participation in the manufacture, preparation, or sale of marijuana. He testified, "I had nothing to do with it."
The State called the jail administrator as a rebuttal witness. This witness laid a foundation for admission of the booking records for Graves' October 2001 arrest, which showed Quick's residence as Graves' address. The jailor testified that normally address information comes from the arrested person, but he had no personal knowledge whether the usual procedure was followed in booking Graves. Graves then testified that he had not given Quick's address as his residence when he was admitted to the jail in October 2001.
The jury found the defendant guilty of manufacturing marijuana and of possession of marijuana, a lesser-included offense of the possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge. Graves' posttrial motions were overruled and the court sentenced him to an indeterminate ten-year term in prison on the manufacturing conviction and imposed statutory fines on both convictions. The defendant then filed this appeal.
Graves asserts that alleged misconduct by the county attorney deprived him of a fair trial. See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2002)
(); U.S. Const. amend. 14. He points to certain questions asked by the county attorney in cross-examining Graves and to statements made by the county attorney in closing argument as the basis for his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.
The following colloquy occurred during the county attorney's cross-examination of Graves with respect to the conversation between Graves and Steil at the police station:
(Emphasis added.) Although defense counsel did not object to this questioning, the defendant now claims it was improper for the State to force him to comment on the veracity of another witness.
The defendant also complains on appeal of the following remarks made by the county attorney in the rebuttal portion of his closing argument:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warholic
...free of fabrication." Id. 20. The defendant, in support of his argument, also cites the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003). The defendant's reliance on Graves is misplaced because the prosecutor's questions in that case solely asked whether the witn......
-
State v. Christensen
...asserts the district court erred in failing to grant him a new trial based upon prosecutorial misconduct. See State v. Graves , 668 N.W.2d 860, 867 (Iowa 2003) ; State v. Piper , 663 N.W.2d 894, 913 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes , 790 N.W.2d 545, 551 (Iowa 2010).......
-
McGinn v. State
...including a verdict that rests on the evidence and not on passion or prejudice.Barnes,¶ 9, 249 P.3d at 729(quoting State v. Graves,668 N.W.2d 860, 873 (Iowa 2003)).[¶ 20] This case, as the State concedes, “depended on which witness was credible to the jury.” As the trial court noted: “There......
-
Garrison v. Burt
...misconduct to the central issues in the case and 2) the extent to which the state invited or instigated the misconduct. State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003). The Iowa Court of Appeals addressed Garrison's due process claim relating to the gun imprint in his second direct appeal ......
-
§ 22.14 TESTIMONY ON CREDIBILITY
...witness of being a liar."); Allen v. United States, 837 A.2d 917, 920 (D.C. App. 2003) (citation omitted). See also State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 873 (Iowa 2003) ("[U]se of this tactic . . . is incompatible with the duties of a prosecutor. Unfairly questioning the defendant simply to mak......
-
§ 22.14 Testimony on Credibility
...into choosing to either undermine their own testimony or essentially accuse another witness of being a liar."). See also State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 873 (Iowa 2003) ("[U]se of this tactic . . . is incompatible with the duties of a prosecutor. Unfairly questioning the defendant simply t......