Opinion
No. 1-902 / 01-0138.
Filed February 20, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, JOHN P. CROUCH, Judge.
Leonard Palmer appeals from his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing injury. AFFIRMED.
Christopher Kragnes, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, Terry E. Rachels, County Attorney, and Jane Orlanes, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ. VOGEL, J., takes no part.
Leonard Palmer appeals from his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b) (1999). He contends the trial court erred in (1) violating State v. Turecek, (2) denying his judgment of acquittal, and (3) violating his due process rights. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings . Upon returning home from work on January 25, 2000, Leonard Palmer and his wife, Kathy, began arguing. Both parties threw kitchen pans at each other. At some point, Kathy blacked out or became dazed. When she awoke, she was lying on the bloodied kitchen floor and the defendant was gone. Her lip had been cut through its entire thickness and she bled from a second cut above her left eye. Kathy called a taxicab to take her to the hospital. At the hospital, Kathy was crying and appeared to be upset and anxious.
While medical staff attended to Kathy's injuries, the defendant arrived at the hospital. He informed a police officer that when he returned home from running an errand, he saw blood on the kitchen floor. He stated that he came to the hospital because "he did not know what happened to her head." When asked how he knew Kathy had sustained a head injury, the defendant claimed that having worked in nursing he knew that "any time there's that much blood, that it is a head wound or an artery wound." When the officer arrested him for domestic abuse, the defendant said, "I didn't do it on purpose." Meanwhile, a nurse and doctor treating Kathy's injuries noticed she became fearful when she overheard her husband's voice in the hall.
The defendant was charged with domestic abuse assault causing serious injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2A(2)(c), which was later amended to domestic abuse causing bodily injury. A jury trial commenced in July 2000. Kathy testified she slipped on a rug and hit her head on a microwave stand, which knocked her out. Her treating doctor testified that, while it is "possible" Kathy's injuries were caused by a fall, the injuries were not consistent with such an event. The jury found defendant guilty of domestic abuse assault with injury. Defendant stipulated that he had previously been convicted of domestic abuse, and he was convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor pursuant to Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(b). The court sentenced him to an indeterminate two-year prison term with all but seven days suspended.
Palmer appeals. He contends the district court erred in allowing the State to call the victim as a witness, knowing she would give testimony that was unfavorable to the State's case. He alleges a Turecek violation occurred when the court allowed the State to then offer otherwise inadmissible evidence for impeachment purposes. He also contends the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to prove domestic abuse assault with bodily injury. Finally, Palmer argues the court erred in denying his counsel a sidebar and allowing the State's prejudicial statements into the record in violation of his due process rights.
II. Hearsay Violation . Palmer contends the district court erred in admitting inadmissible hearsay under the guise of impeachment in violation of State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219 (Iowa 1990). We review Turecek violations for errors at law. State v. Wixom, 599 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
The State may not use an otherwise inadmissible prior inconsistent statement to impeach its own witness when the primary purpose for calling the witness is to later impeach them. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d at 225. Here, the State called Kathy Palmer to testify about the events of January 25, 2000. In the course of her testimony, Kathy testified that her injuries occurred when she slipped on a kitchen rug and hit her head on the microwave stand. The State then attempted to impeach the portion of her testimony regarding how her injuries occurred. The State called the police officer that drove Kathy home from the hospital. The officer testified that Kathy admitted her husband had caused her injuries but that she could not recall how they occurred. The defendant alleges the district court erred in allowing this testimony in violation of Turecek.
We find the district court did not violate Turecek in allowing the testimony of the police officer to impeach Kathy. Kathy Palmer was not called for the primary reason of impeaching her with her prior inconsistent statement. Instead, she provided valuable testimony that no other witness could offer. Kathy testified regarding her argument with the defendant. She testified that when she awoke on the kitchen floor, the defendant was gone so she called a taxicab to take her to the hospital. She also testified about the nature of her injuries. The trial court admitted only limited testimony for impeachment. It denied the State the opportunity to admit other prior inconsistent statements Kathy made at the hospital. On this record, we affirm the trial court's ruling.
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence . Palmer contends the district court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of domestic abuse assault with bodily injury. Specifically, he alleges there was no evidence to show he caused any of Kathy's injuries, other than the prior inconsistent statement she made to the police officer. We review defendant's claim for errors at law. See State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 610 (Iowa 2001).
On review we find sufficient evidence exists to find the defendant caused the injuries to his wife. The undisputed facts are that the defendant and his wife were arguing on January 25, 2000. The defendant threw a kitchen pan during the argument. Kathy Palmer blacked out for a period of time and when she awoke she was lying on the kitchen floor with injuries to her forehead and lip. The defendant was gone. Kathy did not attempt to contact her husband to inform him of her injuries or to take her to the hospital. Instead, she called a cab. When she arrived at the hospital, she was visibly upset. She became more upset when she heard defendant's voice.
Although Kathy testified that her injuries were sustained when she slipped on a rug, her credibility on this issue was diminished by the impeachment testimony. Kathy also stated that she was "not thrilled" about testifying and did not want her husband to be in trouble. Furthermore, the doctor testified that Kathy's injuries were not consistent with a slip and fall injury. Finally, the defendant's own statement that he "didn't do it on purpose," coupled with his knowledge of Kathy's injuries, would lead a reasonable fact finder to infer that he had in fact caused her injuries.
Because sufficient evidence exists to support Palmer's conviction of domestic abuse assault with bodily injury, we find the district court did not err in denying Palmer's motion for directed verdict of acquittal.
IV. Prosecutorial Misconduct . Finally, Palmer contends the district court erred in allowing prejudicial statements made by the State into the record in violation of his due process rights. He argues the State impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to him to prove his innocence. To the extent that defendant's argument raises due process concerns, our review is de novo. State v. Reinier, 628 N.W.2d 460, 464 (Iowa 2001).
Closing arguments were not reported. The prosecutor, in rebuttal, made statements that were objected to by defense counsel. The court overruled the objection and denied a sidebar. After the case was submitted to the jury, a record was made. The prosecutor referring to the defendant's closing argument stated, "the defendant mentioned that the State didn't bring any witnesses to show something, and that the defendant also didn't bring any witnesses to show the same thing, and that the State also didn't show you the shooter on the grassy knoll. . . ." It appears the statement was made in response to defense counsel's closing argument. In closing, counsel argued the State failed to prove Leonard had not learned of Kathy's injuries from anyone. Therefore, we find the prosecutor's statement was made in response to the defendant's strategy to put the State's case and witnesses on trial and did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant. See Brewer v. State, 444 N.W.2d 77, 84 (Iowa 1989). Additionally, the jury was instructed that the statements and arguments of the lawyers were not evidence. Such an instruction is usually sufficient to remove any danger of prejudice. State v. Simpson, 438 N.W.2d 20, 21 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989). Finally, the police officer testified that Leonard explained why he thought Kathy had a head injury. Leonard's explanation did not include a claim that he learned of her injury from another person. As a result, we find no error in allowing the prosecutor's statements in closing argument.
AFFIRMED.