State of Iowa v. Benjamin Royer, 16-1206

Background

On December 26, 2015 Royer failed to stop at a stop sign, his car was struck, he exited and fled to a nearby apartment complex, and officers later found signs of intoxication (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol) and alcohol containers in the vehicle.
Officers twice asked Royer to take preliminary breath tests (PBTs); he refused both times. He received medical treatment and was transported to the station thereafter.
Royer’s driver’s license was barred as a habitual offender and revoked under chapter 321J at the time of the crash.
A jury convicted Royer of OWI (third offense), leaving the scene causing injury, driving while barred (habitual offender), and driving while revoked; acquitted on operating without owner’s consent. District court imposed consecutive sentence on the leaving-the-scene count; other sentences concurrent.
Royer appealed, challenging evidentiary rulings (admission of PBT refusals, prior-act testimony), alleged prosecutorial misconduct, certain jury instructions and sufficiency of proof for barred/revoked offenses, and the sentencing statement-of-reasons for consecutive sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of testimony that Royer refused PBTs	Testimony about refusal is admissible to show consciousness of guilt and is relevant	Admission was improper and prejudicial	Held admissible; no abuse of discretion; any error harmless due to overwhelming evidence of intoxication
Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting/referring to PBT-refusal testimony	State contends testimony was admissible and comments proper	Royer contends elicitation and closing reference were prosecutorial error/misconduct	Not preserved for review (no timely objection/mistrial); thus claim rejected
Motions for mistrial based on witnesses referencing prior arrests/convictions	State: testimony was relevant to elements (barred/revoked status and owner consent)	Royer: testimony was inadmissible prior-acts evidence and unduly prejudicial	Denied; testimony was relevant to disputed elements and admissible; no abuse of discretion
Whether mailing notice is an element of driving while barred	State: offense consists of operating while barred; notice not required element	Royer: district court should instruct mailing notice is required and there was insufficient proof of mailing	Held notice is not an element; conviction sustained (Royer had stipulated bar in effect)
Whether mailing notice is required and sufficiency for driving while revoked	State: revocation due to chapter 321J and operation while revoked are the elements	Royer: instruction should require proof of mailed notice to last address; insufficient evidence without mailing proof	Held mailing notice not an element; proposed instruction properly rejected; sufficiency satisfied by stipulation and evidence of driving
Sentencing statement of reasons for consecutive sentence	State concedes district court failed to state reasons for consecutive sentence	Royer: district court erred by not providing required statement of reasons	Sentence for leaving-the-scene vacated and remanded for resentencing with reasons (state concession affirmed)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2001) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion)
State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 1995) (conduct after crime may show consciousness of guilt)
State v. Redmond, 803 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2011) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (preservation rules for prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (mistrial and abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (three-step test for other-acts evidence relevance and prejudice)
State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2004) (proof required for prior-act evidence)
State v. Kennedy, 846 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa 2014) (driving-while-revoked requires revocation due to chapter 321J)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (district court must state reasons for consecutive sentences)