State of Iowa v. Antonio R. Gantt, 16-0474

On October 7, 2015, De’Vate Ewell was stopped in a vehicle when a person from a silver Chevrolet Impala struck his vehicle’s windows with a baseball bat.
Witnesses provided the Impala’s license plate; police later stopped that Impala and found Antonio Gantt driving it; a matching baseball bat was in the trunk and Gantt fled capture but was apprehended.
Gantt was charged with first-degree burglary, assault while participating in a felony, and second-degree criminal mischief; the jury convicted him of second-degree burglary (lesser-included), assault, and criminal mischief.
On appeal Gantt argued (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony as hearsay, (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove aiding-and-abetting and the "breaking" element of burglary, and (3) the aiding-and-abetting jury instruction was improper.
The court reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo and applied Strickland for prejudice; it reviewed sufficiency of the evidence under the usual substantial-evidence standard and reviewed instruction submission for legal error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for failing to object to Ewell’s prior ID testimony	State: Ewell testified and was cross-examined; prior ID admissible under rule 5.801(d)(1)(C)	Gantt: Trial counsel should have objected to out-of-court identification as hearsay	Court: No breach—statement admissible under rule 5.801(d)(1)(C); counsel not ineffective
Counsel ineffective for failing to object to Officer Jasper’s testimony	State: Even if hearsay, independent evidence made any error harmless	Gantt: Officer related hearsay about Ewell’s statements and about trunk belongings being given away	Court: No prejudice—ample independent evidence (license plate, surveillance, flight, bat in trunk); claim fails
Sufficiency: aiding and abetting	State: Evidence supports either direct perpetration or aiding/abetting (driver followed victim, fled, etc.)	Gantt: Evidence insufficient to prove he knowingly aided or abetted others	Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could find knowledge and participation—instruction submission proper
Sufficiency: "breaking" element of burglary	State: Shattering vehicle windows with a bat constitutes removing or putting aside an obstruction—breaking	Gantt: Ewell denied knowing whether bat entered vehicle, so breaking not proven	Court: Breaking proven by evidence of shattered windows; Ewell’s memory about the bat entering the vehicle irrelevant

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard requiring breach and prejudice)
State v. Hougland, 197 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1972) (definition of "breaking" by removing or putting aside an obstruction)
State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2012) (discussing breaking and entering a vehicle as burglary)
State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 2008) (substantial-evidence standard)
State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (standard for submission of jury instructions)