Opinion
No. 2-487 / 01-1236.
Filed November 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, MICHAEL J. MOON, Judge.
Appeal by defendant from sexual abuse convictions claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, Ron Robertsen, County Attorney, and Ricki Williamson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HABHAB, SNELL, and BROWN, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
Defendant LeRoy Dean Haines, Jr. appeals from his conviction of two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and 709.3(2) (1999). He was sentenced to consecutive twenty-five year sentences. Defendant's appeal is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Our review is de novo since the claim involves a constitutional right. State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721, 722 (Iowa 1999). Upon our review of the record, we affirm.
Defendant is the father of two daughters, S.H. and A.H., each eight years old. Defendant admitted sexually abusing his daughters to his wife and to the police in two interviews. Physical examinations of the girls by a doctor revealed vaginal tearing consistent with sexual abuse. Additionally, both girls testified that their father abused them by touching them inappropriately which caused pain. These acts involved the breasts, vagina and rectum of both girls and the insertion of defendant's penis in one of the girl's mouths. Defendant admitted these acts had been going on over a two-month period.
The case was tried to the court. The defense was insanity. Defendant claimed that he had found his daughters and son engaged in sexual exploration. He said he committed the sexual acts on his daughters as punishment and to encourage them to not engage in that activity in the future.
Expert testimony was presented on the question of insanity. A clinical psychologist testified on behalf of defendant. After an interview and various psychological tests, he concluded that defendant suffers from schizophrenia, undifferentiated type, chronic. He believed defendant did not appreciate the nature and quality of his actions. A board certified psychiatrist and neurologist also testified for defendant. He interviewed and conducted a psychiatric evaluation. In his opinion, defendant was suffering major depression and could not appreciate the consequences of his own actions. He could not say defendant could not help in his own defense and be able to stand trial. After receiving the psychologist's assessment report, he stated his belief was that defendant had a thought disorder, probably schizophrenia, if not frank schizophrenia.
For the State, a psychiatrist evaluated defendant for an hour and twenty-five minutes and found his mental status to be within normal limits. He reviewed the report of the psychologist and psychiatrist who also evaluated defendant as well as the trial information and police reports. His opinion was that defendant was not medically, psychologically impaired. He specifically found that at the time of the acts committed on his daughters, defendant was not laboring under any psychiatric disorder and no psychosis had interfered with his behavior at that time. He stated that defendant denied experiencing any symptoms that might indicate a diagnosis of that sort.
On the issue of insanity, the court applied the M'Naughton Rule adopted by our supreme court. State v. McVey, 376 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1985). When conflicting psychiatric testimony is presented to the fact finder, the issue of sanity is clearly for the fact finder to decide. State v. Fetters, 562 N.W.2d 770, 775 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The trial court is not obligated to accept opinion evidence, even from experts, as conclusive. State v. Venske, 576 N.W.2d 382, 384 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). When a case evolves into a battle of experts, the reviewing court readily defers to the district court's judgment as it is in a better position to weigh the credibility of the witnesses. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 2000).
The trial court's opinion was factually very specific and comprehensive. The court determined the testimony of the State's expert witness was more persuasive because it incorporated more information and covered a longer period of time. Also, the State's psychiatrist's opinion was directed to the time the offenses occurred. The court concluded the defendant had failed to prove his insanity claim by a preponderance of the evidence, as the law requires. See Iowa Crim. Jury Instr. No. 200.10; Iowa Code §§ 709.1, 709.3(2) (1999).
Defendant's appeal claims error by the trial court in not specifically finding that the State had proved all elements of each offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt as a precedent to a finding the insanity defense had not been proved. See State v. McMullin, 421 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Iowa 1998). The argument is raised as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Defendant claims his trial counsel should have asserted this error by moving for a new trial.
To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must prove both that (1) counsel failed in an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted from counsel's error. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 802 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984). An ineffective assistance claim may be disposed of if the defendant fails to prove either prong. State v. Avery, 594 N.W.2d 438, 445 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
Our review convinces us that defendant has not been prejudiced even if the claimed error occurred. The trial court was well aware that the elements of these crimes had to be proved by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is overwhelming that established defendant's guilt. There is no reasonable probability that a motion for a new trial, if made, would have been granted or that the ultimate ruling on retrial would have been different. See State v. Miles, 346 N.W.2d 517, 519 (Iowa 1984). Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.