Opinion
No. 4-023 / 03-0387
Filed February 11, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Annette J. Scieszinski, Judge.
Rodney Housholder appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for assaulting a peace officer while using or displaying a dangerous weapon. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert Bozwell Jr., County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Rodney Housholder appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for assaulting a peace officer while using or displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(2) and 708.3A (2002). Specifically, he argues (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of his pending criminal charge in another county and statements made by his wife, and (2) his trial counsel was ineffective. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
On July 18, 2002, Housholder learned there were charges pending against him in Davis County arising from an altercation that occurred the night before with his brothers-in-law. Later that day, he went to the law center in Appanoose County to make arrangements to turn himself in on the Davis County arrest warrant. Housholder spoke with Lt. George Johnson and asked him if he could leave his truck at the law center because he was concerned his in-laws would vandalize his truck. Housholder then asked Lt. Johnson if he would come home with him and pick up his weapons for safekeeping. Housholder was afraid his brothers-in-law would do something with the weapons. Lt. Johnson told Housholder where to park his truck and agreed to accompany him to his home.
Upon arrival at Housholder's residence, Lt. Johnson found the guns gathered on the kitchen table. He collected the guns while Housholder went into the bedroom and packed some personal belongings to take with him to jail. Housholder sat down on the bed and started crying. Lt. Johnson came in and sat down next to him. Housholder asked Lt. Johnson "to just shoot [him]" and "put [him] out of [his] misery." Lt. Johnson said "he couldn't do that." Housholder stood up and walked to his closet and pulled out a machete with an 18-inch blade. The State and Housholder disagree about what happened next. Housholder claims that at all times he held the machete by his side and he never raised it in an attempt to hurt Lt. Johnson. Housholder stated, "Here's a knife. It's got fresh prints on it." He stepped toward Lt. Johnson who backed around the corner into the hallway. Housholder then stated, "George, you've got to do this for me. . . . Just draw your weapon, aim center mass and squeeze off two rounds." Housholder noticed Lt. Johnson was scared so he handed the machete to him.
The State alleges that Housholder pulled out a machete, threw the sheath on the floor, and raised the machete above his head. Householder then walked toward Lt. Johnson with the machete above his head in a striking position. Housholder yelled, "Kill me, or I'm going to kill you." When Lt. Johnson responded, "No, you're not," Housholder repeated his threat. Next, Housholder placed the machete against Lt. Johnson's abdomen and demanded to be shot. Lt. Johnson attempted to talk Housholder "out of this." After a few minutes, Housholder gave Lt. Johnson the machete and sat down on the bed.
Lt. Johnson called for assistance. Other officers arrived on the scene, and Housholder was handcuffed and placed into the squad car. After Housholder was taken to the Appanoose County Jail, arrangements were made to transport him to Davis County so he could turn himself in on the arrest warrant. While in transport, Housholder tried twice to jump out of the moving vehicle in an attempt to commit suicide.
Housholder was charged by trial information with assaulting a peace officer while using or displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(2) and 708.3A (2002). Housholder filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the pending Davis County charge. Following a hearing, the district court granted Housholder's motion in part. The court permitted the State to present limited evidence that there were pending charges in Davis County in the context of the request that was made by Housholder to Lt. Johnson. The court excluded any specifics about the nature of the other incident. The State then sought to modify the court's ruling to allow reference to Housholder's brothers-in-law and to allow statements made by Housholder's wife to explain the circumstances of the case. The court granted the State's request. A jury trial commenced on December 10, 2002. Housholder's defense was that he was temporarily insane. The jury rejected his defense and returned a verdict of guilty. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed five years. Housholder appeals.
Admission of Evidence.
Housholder claims the district court erred in allowing evidence of his pending criminal charge in Davis County and statements made by his wife to Lt. Johnson because it was inadmissible under Iowa Rules of Evidence 5.402 (relevancy), 5.403 (undue prejudice), and 5.404 (character and other bad acts evidence inadmissible to prove character). We review Housholder's evidentiary claims for an abuse of discretion. State v. Sallis, 574 N.W.2d 15, 16 (Iowa 1998).
Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.401 defines relevant evidence "as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Iowa R. Evid. 5.401. There is a presupposition that relevant evidence is admissible. Iowa R. Evid. 5.402. We conclude this evidence is relevant.
We also conclude the probative value of this evidence was not "substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice" under rule 5.403. Housholder was claiming insanity to explain his actions. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Housholder's pending criminal charge in Davis County and statements made by his wife under rule 5.403.
Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to show a general propensity to commit wrongful acts. State v. Haskins, 573 N.W.2d 39, 45 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). Evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted, however, for one or more of the nonexclusive purposes listed in Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404( b). Id. Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404( b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The list of admissible "other purposes" in rule 5.404( b) is not exclusive. State v. Brown, 569 N.W.2d 113, 116 (Iowa 1997). Instead, the key to determining admissibility depends upon "whether the challenged evidence is relevant and material to some legitimate issue other than a general propensity to commit a wrongful act." Id. (quoting State v. Uthe, 542 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1996)). Evidence immediately surrounding the offense is admissible in order to show the complete story of a crime, even when it shows commission of another crime. State v. Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d 76, 83 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (citing State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797, 812 (Iowa 1997)); see also State v. Lockheart, 410 N.W.2d 688, 696 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (noting "when acts are so clearly related in time and place and so intimately connected that they form a continuous transaction, the whole transaction may be shown to complete the story").
The State contends the aforementioned evidence was admissible because it was part of the circumstances of the case and not evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. See Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d at 83. We agree. Furthermore, we find evidence of Housholder's pending criminal charge and statements made by his wife were not "wholly independent" of the crime for which Housholder is on trial. See State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 188 (Iowa 1994) (holding "[e]vidence of other offenses should never be admitted when the other offense is committed wholly independent of the one for which the defendant is on trial"). The district court did not err in admitting this evidence.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Housholder raises several ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Our review of an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is de novo. State v. Bergmann, 600 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 1999). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel. Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). A defendant receives ineffective assistance of counsel when (1) the defense attorney fails in an essential duty and (2) prejudice results. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984). An ineffective assistance of counsel claim may be disposed of if the defendant fails to prove either prong. State v. Cook, 565 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 1997).
Ordinarily we preserve claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal for postconviction proceedings to allow full development of the facts surrounding counsel's conduct. State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997). "Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional reputation is impugned." State v. Coil, 264 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978). We will resolve ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal when the record is adequate to decide the issue. State v. Arne, 579 N.W.2d 326, 329 (Iowa 1998). We deem this record sufficient.
First, Housholder argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Lt. Johnson's testimony regarding statements made by his wife. Housholder objects to the following testimony as inadmissible hearsay:
As stated previously, trial counsel did object to this evidence on grounds of relevancy, unfair prejudice, and other bad acts.
Q. (Prosecutor): When you came on duty that morning, you would have had contact with Susan Housholder, the defendant's spouse; is that correct? A. (Lt. Johnson): Yes.
Q. And would it be fair to say that when you came on duty, she described that there had been some incident between the defendant and it would have been her brother or brother-in-law occurring in Davis County the night before? A. That's correct.
Q. And did she express some concern to you with regard to the whereabouts of Mr. Householder, that sort of thing? A. Yes, she did.
Q. Was her concern that she did not know exactly where he was at that time? A. Correct.
Q. Did she advise you with regard to anything that might be in the house that was a concern to her? A. Yes, she did.
Q. And what was that? A. She said that there was some firearms at the home and that if we were to attempt to arrest her husband, that we needed to know that.
Q. Did she also advise you that she would prefer that if you had contact with Mr. Housholder, that you not advise him as to where she was at? A. Yes.
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, other than one made by a declarant while testifying at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Iowa R. Evid. 5.801( c). Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the Iowa Constitution, by statute, by the rules of evidence, or by other rules of the Iowa Supreme Court. Iowa R. Evid. 5.802.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude this testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The officer was simply testifying concerning the basis for his belief Housholder intended to physically harm him. Thus, his testimony was "admissible as necessary to complete the story of the crime on trial." State v. Rush, 242 N.W.2d 313, 319 (Iowa 1976). "Generally, an investigating officer may explain his actions by testifying as to what information he had and its source regarding the crime and the criminal." State v. Reynolds, 250 N.W.2d 434, 440 (Iowa 1977). Accordingly, we find trial counsel did not breach an essential duty when he failed to object to this testimony as hearsay.
Secondly, Housholder asserts his trial counsel was ineffective for "opening the door" and placing his character into issue. In our discretion we address the prejudice prong first on Housholder's second claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Housholder must prove that a reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Hildebrant, 405 N.W.2d 839, 841 (Iowa 1987). He is simply unable to show prejudice because the evidence against him was overwhelming. Housholder pulled an eighteen-inch machete out of his closet. He moved toward Lt. Johnson with the machete above his head in a striking position and yelled "Kill me, or I'm going to kill you." Housholder again repeated the threat but this time he placed the machete against Lt. Johnson's abdomen. Housholder himself testified that Lt. Johnson appeared to be scared. Therefore, Housholder fails in his attempt to show prejudice and his claim must fail.
We also reject Housholder's third claim that counsel should have requested a cautionary instruction after Housholder's character was introduced into evidence. For the reasons stated above, the evidence against Housholder was overwhelming. Therefore, he is unable to show prejudice and his claim must fail.
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.