State v. Spann
| Decision Date | 02 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-1456 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL E. SPANN, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EMMANUEL E. SPANN, Defendant-Appellant
No. 20-1456
Court of Appeals of Iowa
November 2, 2022
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for first-degree murder based on a theory of aiding and abetting.
Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Benjamin Parrott, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Carr, S.J. [*]
CARR, Senior Judge.
Emmanuel Spann appeals his conviction for first-degree murder based on a theory of aiding and abetting. Spann claims the district court erred in admitting certain evidence, his conviction was not supported by substantial evidence, and the court should have granted his motion for new trial. After considering all of the issues raised by Spann in this appeal, we affirm his conviction.
I. Background Facts &Proceedings
The jury could find the following facts from evidence presented at Spann's trial. In 2017, A.J. Smith offered $10,000 for someone to kill Demarcus Chew.[1]Spann and his friend, Andre Harris, drove to Burlington, Iowa, from Chicago, Illinois, on September 8, 2017. Harris testified he went to Burlington to purchase drugs from Antoine Spann, who is Spann's nephew. For purposes of clarity, we will refer to Antoine Spann as Antoine. Harris stated Spann came along on the drive to Burlington just "to hang out."
Spann and Harris met up with Antoine, Derrick Parker, and Caesar Davison, who were already in Burlington. The men all grew up in the same neighborhood in Chicago as Smith. All of the men, including Spann, knew about the bounty on Chew and would "spout off" about it, saying, "I'll do it."
On September 9, Spann, Harris, Antoine, Parker, and Davison were at a nightclub in Gulfport, Illinois, when they noticed Chew was at the same location. The men kept an eye on Chew. According to Antoine, although there was not a specific conversation, he agreed that "[a]t some point . . . there [was] an
understanding that was come to about actions to be taken against Demarcus Chew." Antoine also stated, "I mean, you could say that I kinda figured what was going on, but I didn't really think it was going to happen."
When Chew left the nightclub in the morning on September 10, the men followed Chew in two vehicles. Antoine was driving one of the vehicles, Harris was in the front passenger seat, and Davison and Spann were in the backseat. Chew drove to Burlington. While the first vehicle followed Chew, Antoine stated Spann and Davison told him to go a different direction. He stopped where they told him, which was near Chew's home. Davison got out of the vehicle, and Spann followed. According to Harris, they were gone for about two minutes and he did not hear anything unusual. Antoine testified that about five seconds after Spann got out of the vehicle, he heard three or four shots.
Antoine stated that when Davison and Spann returned to the vehicle, he drove off quickly. Harris saw Davison give a gun to Spann. Antoine saw Spann wiping something off. Harris later testified, "I'm not sure who said what, but it was asked, did you get him, and [Davison] responded, I was close up." Antoine explained, "Once we got going, I think I heard [Davison] say his ass gone." At some point, Antoine stopped the vehicle. Spann got out to "get rid of the gun," then returned to the vehicle.
Antoine stated Spann used Antoine's phone to call Smith. All of the men met up again at a house in Burlington. Parker took Davison's sweater and threw it in the garbage in the alley behind the house. Antoine called Smith, who told him to come to Smith's house in Illinois. Antoine stated that instead of $10,000, which
they expected to receive for the death of Chew, Smith gave him $1000 and a pound of methamphetamine.
Harris went back to Chicago after a fairly short time. Spann and Davison left in a different vehicle at about the same time. Antoine also returned to Chicago and gave the money and methamphetamine to Davison. Spann was with Davison when Davison received the cash and drugs.
Chew died as a result of multiple gunshot wounds. A witness saw a tall person leaving the scene. Spann is six feet, two inches tall. Spann later told Antoine that he observed the shooting of Chew.
After Antoine was charged with first-degree murder, he entered into plea negotiations with the State. Antoine agreed to make a telephone call to Spann that was recorded by a police officer. During the call, Spann stated that he wiped off the gun and stashed it in an alley near a white picket fence. Antoine expressed concern that Parker might have seen Spann get out of the vehicle and tell officers about it, and Spann responded, "Yeah." Officers were able to find the gun in a location similar to that described by Spann. Ballistics tests show the gun was used to kill Chew.
On March 7, 2019, Spann was charged with murder in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 707.2(1)(a) (2017), under a theory of aiding and abetting, section 703.1. He was also charged with conspiracy to commit a forcible felony, in violation of sections 706.1 and 706.3(1). Spann's jury trial was held in January and February 2020. Harris and Antoine had entered into plea agreements that required them to give truthful testimony against others involved in the incident,
and they testified for the State in Spann's trial. The case was submitted to the jury on February 7 at about 12:40 p.m.
Earlier on February 7, at 8:56 a.m., Antoine made a call from a correctional facility, where he stated, "I ain't testifying against [Davison], bro. I ain't saying shit on [Davison], bro. Imma get up there and tell them people I lied, I made all this shit up, bro." Davison's trial was to start the following week, and Harris and Antoine were expected to testify against him. Antoine also stated, "Emmanuel didn't do nothin', he just got out of the car." Antoine stated Parker planned and carried out the murder of Chew. Antoine was aware the call was being recorded, stating, "And it's on the record right now. I'm on the phone with you. So it's on the record. I lied."
The State did not disclose Antoine's telephone call to defense counsel until 4:30 p.m. on February 10, after the jury found Spann guilty of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit a forcible felony.
Spann filed a motion for new trial and motion in arrest of judgment. He claimed he should be granted a new trial because the State failed to disclose important and material evidence, the State's failure violated his right to due process, the verdict was contrary to the law or evidence, the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, and he was denied his right to a fair and impartial trial.
The State resisted Spann's motions. The prosecutor asserted that counsel for Davison advised her on Friday afternoon, February 7, that Antoine may have made a telephone call. The prosecutor stated she obtained a recording of the telephone call on Monday, February 10, and forwarded it to defense counsel. The
State asserted that Antoine's testimony at Davison's trial was substantially the same as it was in Spann's trial. Spann replied, pointing out the State gave counsel for Davison a recording of the telephone call at 8:51 a.m. on February 10 but did not give counsel for Spann a recording of the call until 4:30 p.m., after the jury had returned its verdict.
The district court issued an order on October 14, denying Spann's motions. The court determined there was substantial evidence in the record to show Spann aided and abetted in the murder of Chew and conspired to commit murder. The court also found the jury's verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The court found the State's failure to timely give defense counsel a recording of Antoine's telephone call was not a violation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), because the evidence was not material, meaning the evidence did not undermine confidence in the verdict. Additionally, considering the telephone call as newly discovered evidence, the court found that presenting the evidence to the jury would not probably change the result of the trial, so a new trial was not warranted. The court stated Antoine "was attempting to avoid being labeled a snitch." The court concluded Spann received a fair and impartial trial.
Spann was sentenced to life in prison on his conviction for first-degree murder. The district court merged the conviction for conspiracy to commit murder into the conviction for murder. Spann appeals his conviction.
II. Evidentiary Rulings
Spann challenges two of the district court's evidentiary rulings. He claims the evidence should be excluded under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403, because the
probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Iowa Supreme Court has stated:
Whether evidence should be excluded under rule 5.403 is a two-part test: "First, we consider the probative value of the evidence. Second, we balance the probative value against the danger of its prejudicial or wrongful effect upon the triers of fact." "The relevant inquiry is not whether the evidence is prejudicial or inherently prejudicial but whether the evidence is unfairly prejudicial." Unfair prejudice means the "evidence has an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis." Our review of evidentiary decisions under rule 5.403 is for an abuse of discretion. "Weighing probative value against prejudicial effect 'is not an exact science,' so 'we give a great deal of leeway to the trial judge who must make this judgment call.'"
State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 807 (Iowa 2021) (internal citations omitted). A. Prior to trial, Spann filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude body camera footage from...
To continue reading
Request your trial