State of Iowa v. Donald Ray Harris, 15-1555

Background

On August 15, 2014, police stopped a silver car reported to contain a person with a firearm; five occupants were in the vehicle.
Harris was seated in the middle of the rear seat (per officers and a passenger); officers observed a rear-middle passenger make furtive movements toward the driver’s seat during the stop.
A firearm wrapped in a sock was found on the driver’s-side floorboard under the driver’s seat; Davis testified he saw Harris lean toward the driver’s seat and then saw the sock with the gun; Hughes testified Harris handed her the sock.
Harris stipulated to a prior felony conviction and was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm (Iowa Code § 724.26(1)) and carrying weapons (Iowa Code § 724.4(1)); jury convicted on the felon-in-possession count and acquitted on going-armed.
Trial court denied a judgment of acquittal motion; instructed on actual, constructive, and joint possession and on “dominion and control” and knowledge.
On appeal Harris challenged sufficiency of evidence, argued inconsistent verdicts, and raised ineffective-assistance claims; the appellate court affirmed the conviction and preserved ineffectiveness claims for postconviction proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove dominion/possession	State: evidence (furtive movement, location of gun, testimony placing Harris in rear-middle, Hughes/Davis testimony) is substantial to support possession/dominion	Harris: evidence insufficient to prove he knowingly possessed or had dominion and control over the firearm	Affirmed — viewed in light most favorable to State, substantial evidence supports conviction
Verdict inconsistency (guilty of possession but not going armed)	State: instructions were distinct; elements differ so verdicts are not legally inconsistent	Harris: acquittal on going armed is inconsistent with possession verdict	Affirmed — not legally inconsistent given separate elements and jury could find gun not readily accessible
Ineffective assistance — failure to request corroboration instruction for accomplice testimony	Harris: counsel should have requested accomplice-corroboration instruction to challenge accomplice testimony	State: record insufficient on appeal to resolve ineffectiveness; should be preserved for PCR	Not decided on merits — preserved for possible postconviction relief; more developed record required
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to impeachment and to make more specific JOA motion	Harris: counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s impeachment of witnesses and failed to lodge a more specific motion for judgment of acquittal	State: appellate record inadequate to assess performance/prejudice now	Preserved for postconviction proceedings; appellate court declines to resolve now

Key Cases Cited

State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2016) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1984) (jury may accept or reject witness testimony and weigh evidence)
State v. Frake, 450 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 1990) (existence of evidence supporting a different verdict does not negate substantial evidence)
State v. Merrett, 842 N.W.2d 266 (Iowa 2014) (a compound offense conviction cannot stand if acquitted of predicate offense)
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 2004) (test for whether jury verdicts are logically and legally irreconcilable)
State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (preserving ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction relief when record is inadequate)