State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 13 December 2000
• Docket Number: 99-1312
• Citation: State v. Williams (Iowa App. 2000)
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DARNELL JAMILLIE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant./ 99-1312 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA Filed
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee vs DARNELL JAMILLIE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 0-591 / 99-1312

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

Filed December 13, 2000

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Paul W. Riffel, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree murder.AFFIRMED.

William T. Morrison of Locher & Morrison, Mason City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Richard J. Bennett, Douglas D. Hammerand, and Laura Roan, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Heard by Streit, P.J., and Vogel and Hecht, JJ.

HECHT, J.

On appeal following his convictions for first-degree robbery and first-degree murder, Darnell Williams contends the court erred in (1) failing to instruct the jury as to the unreliability of cross-racial identification, (2) failing to suppress the identification testimony of a particular witness, (3) allowing into evidence testimony about his reaction to a question regarding the crime, and (4) allowing into evidence testimony of his alleged drug use.He also argues the verdict was contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence, the imposition of a $150,000 fine was unconstitutional, and he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel in a number of respects.We affirm.

I.Factual Background and Proceedings.On October 12, 1998, the State filed a two count trial information charging Williams with murder in the first degree and robbery in the first degree.The charges stemmed from the robbery and shooting death of Bruce Vrchota in his home in the early morning hours of July 27, 1998.At approximately 1 a.m. on July 27, Williams was attending a party at Vanette Taylor's house.Velena Taylor, Vanette's sister, was also at the party and observed Micheal Williams enter the house and then leave quickly.She testified Darnell Williams left the party approximately five minutes after Micheal Williams departed.

A short time later, three men dressed in dark clothing arrived near Bruce Vrchota's home.Two of the men entered the house, apparently looking for drugs and a cash box Vrchota kept on the premises.Vrchota's son, Shelley, was in the house at the time.During the course of the incident, Micheal Williams shot and killed Vrchota.Shelley positively identified Micheal Williams as the man wielding the gun and the one who shot his father.He did not see the second man's face because Micheal Williams ordered Shelley to lay face down on the couch.Shelley was able to observe the back of the second man's neck and testified the second man in his house had dark skin, similar to that of an African-American.Mark Greiman also participated in the incident, but remained outside of the house when Vrchota was shot.After shots were fired, Robert Sansgaard, a friend of one of Vrchota's neighbors, observed the three men running from the scene.The last man to run away from the house turned and fired a shot at Sansgaard.

The three men arrived at Sheyanne Oudekerk's house at approximately 2:00 a.m.She knew Micheal Williams and Greiman, and later identified Darnell Williams in a photo array as the man with them the night of the murder.She drove all three men to Guy Fisher's apartment where Micheal Williams hid the gun used to kill Vrchota.Micheal Williams and Greiman were arrested separately soon after the incident.Darnell Williams was arrested on September 28, 1998.The three men were tried separately.

Trial in this matter commenced on July 7, 1999, and the jury returned verdicts of guilty on both counts.On August 13, 1999, the district court sentenced Williams to life in prison for first-degree murder and twenty-five years for the first-degree robbery charge, to be served concurrently.The district court also ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $150,000 to Vrchota's estate.Williams appeals.

II.Standard of Review.We review alleged error regarding the submission of or refusal to submit jury instructions for correction of errors at law.State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904, 915(Iowa1998).When assessing an alleged violation of a constitutional right, we review de novo the totality of the circumstances as shown by the entire record.State v. Brown, 612 N.W.2d 104, 108(Iowa App.2000).Our standard of review concerning the admission of hearsay evidence is for correction of errors of law.State v. Tornquist, 600 N.W.2d 301, 303(Iowa1999).We review the district court's rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.SeeState v. Query, 594 N.W.2d 438, 443(Iowa App.1999).When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will uphold a verdict where there is substantial evidence in the record tending to support the charge.State v. Dible, 538 N.W.2d 267, 270(Iowa1995).We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo.State v. Johnson, 604 N.W.2d 669, 673(Iowa App.1999).

III.Instruction on Cross-Racial Identification.Williams contends the district court erred when it refused to incorporate his suggested revisions to the uniform jury instruction covering the reliability of eyewitness identification.At trial in this matter, Williams called an expert witness, Dr. Thomas Sannito, who testified as to the infirmities of cross-racial identification.Sannito's testimony was introduced to call into question the reliability of Oudekerk's identification of Williams as the man accompanying Micheal Williams and Greiman to her apartment immediately after the murder.Oudekerk is Caucasian and Williams is African-American.Sannito testified it is very difficult for people of one race to identify members of another race.He indicated several studies have shown eyewitnesses have difficulty distinguishing how members of another race are different and how they are the same.

The district court submitted Jury Instruction 12, which is the same as Uniform Jury Instruction 200.45:

Eyewitness Identification.The reliability of eyewitness identification has been raised as an issue.Identification testimony is an expression of belief or impression by the witness.Its value depends on the opportunity the witness had to see the person at the time of the crime and to make a reliable identification later.

In evaluating the identification testimony of a witness, you should consider the following:

1.If the witness had an adequate opportunity to see the person at the time of the crime.You may consider such matters as the length of time the witness had to observe the person, the conditions at that time in terms of visibility and distance, and whether the witness had known or seen the person in the past.

2.If an identification was made after the crime, you shall consider whether it was the result of the witness's own recollection.You may consider the way in which the defendant was presented to the witness for identification, and the length of time that passed between the crime and the witness's next opportunity to see the defendant.

3.An identification made by picking the defendant out of a group of similar individuals is generally more reliable than one which results from the presentation of the defendant alone to the witness.

4.Any occasion in which the witness failed to identify the defendant or made an inconsistent identification.

The district court refused to add to the stock instruction the following additional language proposed by defense counsel: "If the witness and the person sought to be identified are different races, the difficulty witnesses have in accurately identifying persons of different races."

When jury instructions are challenged on appeal, we review them to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by substantial evidence.State v. Thompson, 570 N.W.2d 765, 767(Iowa1997).Trial courts should generally adhere to the uniform instructions.State v. Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d 493, 501(Iowa1997).Trial courts have discretion to modify or rephrase the uniform jury instructions to meet the precise demands of each case as long as the instructions fully and fairly embody the issues and applicable law.Dudley v. GMT Corp., 541 N.W.2d 259, 261(Iowa App.1995).Any error in jury instructions must be prejudicial to warrant reversal.State v. Holtz, 548 N.W.2d 162, 164(Iowa App.1996).We determine the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to amend the uniform jury instruction to reflect issues of cross-racial identification.The district court did allow Williams's expert to testify at great length regarding the complexities of eyewitness identifications.Defense counsel was permitted to raise these issues in his closing argument.In addition, the district court gave an instruction regarding eyewitness identification that adequately covered the issues raised at trial.We conclude Williams suffered no prejudicial error as a result of the district court's refusal to amend the Uniform Jury Instructions.

IV.Motion to Suppress.Williams next contends the district court erred in failing to suppress Oudekerk's identification of him because it was the product of an impermissibly suggestive photo array.Because Williams raises a constitutional issue, we make an independent evaluation of the totality of the circumstances.State v. Taft, 506 N.W.2d 757, 762(Iowa1993).We employ a two-step process to analyze challenges to out-of-court identifications.Id.First, we consider whether the State employed an impermissibly suggestive procedure.State v. Holderness, 301 N.W.2d 733, 738(Iowa1981).Second, if such an impermissibly suggestive procedure was used, we then determine whether, under the totality of circumstances, the procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.Id.The critical question under the second step is whether the identification was reliable.State v. Zahner, 545 N.W.2d 337, 339(Iowa App.1996).The factors to be used in assessing reliability are: (1) the opportunity of the...