State v. Mootz
Decision Date | 11 May 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 1-019 / 10-0418,1-019 / 10-0418 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERIN DOUGLAS MOOTZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Douglas C. McDonald, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for assault on a police officer causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Dion Trowers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., Potterfield, J., and Huitink, S.J.* Tabor, J., takes no part.
Defendant, Jerin Mootz, appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault on a police officer causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.3A(3) (2009). Mootz contends the district court erred in denying his peremptory strike of a minority juror. We find error, but consider it harmless. Therefore, we affirm.
On June 6, 2009, a fight broke out in the back of the Phil and Larry's Saloon in Davenport. The fight moved outdoors and the police were called. Officer Epigemenio Canas, who is Hispanic, was dispatched to the location where he observed ten to fifteen people outside pushing, yelling, and screaming. He took into custody a Hispanic male who appeared to be an instigator and attempted to take custody of others when he saw a man quickly approaching him with a raised fist. The officer attempted to avoid a punch by turning his head to the side, but was unable to deflect it. He was struck above his right eye and received a laceration. The attacking gentleman, Jerin Mootz (Mootz), lost his balance and fell. Officer Canas positioned himself on top of Mootz and delivered several reactionary strikes with his fist in order to gain control of Mootz. Officer Canas's injuries required five stitches over his right eye. He also testified he experienced swelling in his cheek, pain and swelling in his right hand, and pain in his upper shoulder and neck.
Mootz was charged with assault on a police officer causing bodily injury. The case came to trial on February 8, 2010. Mootz waived the recording of voirdire; however, based on a subsequent court record, we are able to determine that the court advised the parties in a sidebar following voir dire it observed three minority people on the jury panel including two Hispanic males. The court advised the State and Mootz it considered one of the Hispanic males "strikeable" because the juror stated he was related to two area law enforcement people and had medical problems that affected his ability to serve on the jury that day. However, the court advised the parties before they began to exercise their peremptory challenges that it had "heard no sufficient reason" during voir dire that these other minority jurors should be stricken.
Under objection, Mootz struck another juror and the jury panel was sworn.
The jury ultimately found Mootz guilty of assault on a police officer causing bodily injury.
Mootz made a motion for a new trial on February 17, 2010, asserting the court improperly denied him his right to strike the juror in question. In his motion Mootz brought to the court's attention that there were three Hispanic jurors on the panel, not two as the court originally thought. This third juror identified herself as Hispanic on the juror information sheet and Mootz made no attempt to strike her. The motion was set for hearing on February 24, 2010.
At the hearing, the court clarified it did not identify the female juror as Hispanic in the initial court proceeding because it did not have the juror information sheet at the time and the juror did not have a Hispanic last name. The court went on to articulate the reasons it did not allow the juror in question to be stricken.
Mootz asserted the State had the burden to show the reason he gave for striking this juror was pre-textual and failed to meet this burden. Mootz claimed he did in fact leave on the female Hispanic juror demonstrating he was not striking jurors based on race. Mootz stated he gave two good reasons to strike this juror that were race-neutral and the State failed to demonstrate he struck the juror for racially discriminatory reasons.
The court asked the State at this point what its position was on the issue. The State asserted it felt it was the judge's responsibility to make sure jury selection was done in a fair and legal manner. Mootz conceded the court had the right to bring up the issue in the manner in which it did because the Supreme Court has left the ultimate decision on whether peremptory strikes are being used in a discriminatory manner to the trial judge. But Mootz asserted he did provide race-neutral reasons for his strike and the State offered nothing to rebut it. The court ultimately ruled it did not believe Mootz gave race-neutral reasons for striking the juror; and therefore, denied Mootz's motion for a new trial.
Mootz was sentenced on the charge of assault on a police officer causing bodily injury to an indeterminate term of two years and the court imposed a fine of $1500. On March 15, 2010, Mootz filed his notice of appeal.
To continue reading
Request your trial