State v. Johnny Blahnik Church

• Docket Number: 22-0089
• Decision Date: 27 October 2023
• Parties: State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Johnny Blahnik Church a/k/a Drew Alan Blahnik, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Johnny Blahnik Church a/k/a Drew Alan Blahnik, Appellant.

No. 22-0089

Supreme Court of Iowa

October 27, 2023

Submitted September 14, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L Bruns, Judge.

The defendant challenges the propriety of a verdict-urging instruction. Decision of Court of Appeals vacated; District Court Judgment AFFIRMED.

Leon F. Spies of Spies & Pavelich, Iowa City, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert and Louis S Sloven, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

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

OPINION

McDonald, Justice.

When a jury in deliberations communicates to a judge that they may be deadlocked, the judge has considerable discretion to give to the jury a supplemental instruction, known as a verdict-urging instruction, to encourage continued deliberations. The judge's decision to give a verdict-urging instruction will be reversed only where the circumstances show the verdict-urging instruction coerced the jury's verdict. The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its considerable discretion and coerced the jury's verdict by giving a verdict-urging instruction after being told that the jury was divided 11-1 and that one juror was not following the judge's instructions.

I.

Johnny Blahnik Church, also known as Drew Alan Blahnik, stabbed and killed Christopher Bagley. Bagley suffered at least thirteen different stab wounds, including wounds to his neck, chest, and abdomen. After Church killed Bagley, Church helped bury Bagley's body and then lied to investigators and a grand jury about what had happened.

Church was indicted for murder in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.1 and 707.2(1)(a) (2018), obstructing prosecution, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3(1), and abuse of a corpse, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.14(1)(b). The facts and circumstances of Church's offenses are largely immaterial to the resolution of this appeal, and we need not discuss them any further. What is material to the resolution of this appeal are the facts and circumstances related to Church's trial and the jury's deliberations, and we discuss those facts and circumstances at some length.

Church's trial began on Friday, July 16, 2021. At trial, Church asserted a defense of justification. The case was submitted to the jury at approximately 4:06 p.m. on Monday, July 26. The jury met for thirty-five minutes, separating at 4:41 p.m. that day. The jury resumed deliberations the following day, Tuesday, meeting for nearly three hours total between 9 a.m. and noon. On Wednesday, the jury deliberated for approximately seven hours in total.

The jury reconvened on Thursday, July 29. At approximately 10:06 a.m., the jury sent a note to the district court: "A juror is failing to follow specific rules set forth by you in the rule packet provided. In regards to 45 + 52." Instruction 45 related to Church's justification defense, and instruction 52 related to a person's duties after using deadly force. Based on this note, the court believed the jurors were deadlocked. Nonetheless, after conferring with counsel, the district court responded with a written note to the jury: "As previously instructed, you are required to apply the law set forth in the instructions already provided to you."

Approximately one hour later, the jury informed the court attendant that it was deadlocked. After conferring with the attorneys, the district court instructed the jury to communicate with the court in writing, and the jury sent the following note signed by the foreperson:

We have a juror that is refusing to follow certain rules set forth by you. We took a vote to whether or not we felt this person was deliberately not following a rule. The vote was 11 to 1. We have gone over this rule numerous times with this juror. The response has been "I don't care, I'm not changing my opinion."

The court made a record with the attorneys after receiving the jury's note. The State requested the district court issue a verdict-urging instruction. Church's counsel objected. The court denied the prosecutor's request to issue a verdict-urging instruction. Instead, the court sent a question to the jury: "Do you believe further deliberations would be fruitful?"

Shortly thereafter, at 11:37 a.m., the jury sent the following response, signed by the foreperson, to the district court's question: "No, we feel that because the rules set forth by this court are not being followed by a single juror that deliberations would NOT be fruitful." After receiving the jury's response, the district court again met with the lawyers. The prosecutor renewed his request for a verdict-urging instruction, and Church's counsel objected. Church's counsel argued that issuing a verdict-urging instruction under these circumstances would be coercive. After considering the parties' arguments, the district court issued the following written verdict-urging instruction:

You have been deliberating upon this case for a considerable period of time, and the Court deems it proper to advise you further in regard to the desirability of agreement, if possible.

The case has been exhaustively and carefully tried by both sides and has been submitted to you for decision and verdict, if possible. It is the law that a unanimous verdict is required. While this verdict must be the conclusion of each juror and not a mere acquiescence of the jurors in order to reach an agreement, it is still necessary for all of the jurors to examine the issues and questions submitted to them with candor and fairness and with a proper regard for, and deference to, the opinion of each other. A proper regard for the judgment of others will greatly aid us informing our own judgment.

Each juror should listen to the arguments of other jurors with a disposition to be convinced by them; and if the members of the jury differ in their views of the evidence, such difference of opinion should cause them all to scrutinize the evidence more closely and to reexamine the grounds of their problem. Your duty is to decide the issues of fact which have been submitted to you, if you can conscientiously do so. In conferring, you should lay aside all mere pride of opinion and should bear in mind that the jury room is no place for espousing and maintaining, in a spirit of controversy, either side of a cause. The aim ever to be kept in view is the truth as it appears from the evidence, examined in light of the instructions of the Court.

Please continue your deliberations.

The district court issued the instruction at approximately 12:08 p.m.

Three and one-half hours later, at 3:39 p.m., the jury informed the district court it had reached a verdict. The jury found Church guilty of murder in the second degree, obstructing prosecution, and abusing a corpse. The district court polled the jurors in open court, asking each one: "Is this your verdict?" Each juror answered in the affirmative without any doubt or hesitation noted in the record.

Church appealed his convictions, and we transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals concluded the jury's verdict was coerced, vacated Church's convictions, and remanded the case for a new trial. We granted the State's application for further review.

II.

"Supplemental instructions urging a jury to reach a unanimous verdict have 'long been sanctioned.'" State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 911 (Iowa 2003) (quoting Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237 (1988)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545 (Iowa 2010). The district court "has considerable discretion in determining whether [a] verdict-urging instruction[] should be given." State v. Campbell, 294 N.W.2d 803, 808-09 (Iowa 1980). We will reverse a district court's decision to give a verdict-urging instruction only where the verdict-urging instruction coerced or helped coerce the jury's verdict. See State v. Davis, 975 N.W.2d 1, 18 (Iowa 2022). In determining whether the instruction coerced or helped coerce the jury's verdict, we generally look at "the content of the verdict-urging instruction," "the timing surrounding the verdict," and the "responses from juror polling to ensure each juror was not coerced into their verdict." Id. These considerations are not exclusive, however, and each case must be decided based on the totality of the circumstances. See id. "The ultimate test is whether the instruction improperly coerced or helped coerce a verdict or merely initiated a new train of real deliberation which terminated the disagreement." Campbell, 294 N.W.2d at 808.

A.

The disposition of this case is largely controlled by our recent decision in State v. Davis, 975 N.W.2d 1. In that case, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder. Id. at 7. "After seven hours of jury deliberation, the court attendant informed the court that the jury may be deadlocked." Id. at 17. Over the defendant's objection, the district court gave the jury a verdict-urging instruction. Id. After the jury was provided with an oral verdict-urging instruction, "they deliberated for approximately four and a half hours before returning with a guilty verdict." Id. On appeal, the defendant contended that the verdict-urging instruction coerced the jury's verdict and that he was entitled to a new trial. Id. We concluded the defendant failed to establish coercion or potential coercion of the jury's verdict. In analyzing the most relevant factors, we concluded the content of the instruction was not coercive, id. at 18, the timing of the jury's verdict did not evidence coercion, id. at 20, and the jury poll did not evidence coercion, id....