State of Iowa v. Donny Junior West, 15-1431

Background

Around midnight April 5, 2015 a shooting occurred at a Fort Madison residence; the victim (Fraise’s son) had a .22 caliber gunshot wound and West was identified as the driver of a vehicle that left the scene. A .22 revolver was later found along West’s route.
Melissa Fraise told officers at the scene she and West had been drinking, had a physical altercation in which West struck her, and she saw West with a gun; she did not say she saw him pull the trigger. Her on-scene statements were captured on a patrol car dash-cam audio.
Fraise and her son later gave depositions consistent with their on-scene statements; both described the shooting as accidental but the son said he saw West pull a gun and the gun discharged during a scuffle.
The State subpoenaed Fraise and her son for trial, attempted to assist with travel and provided bus tickets; both failed to appear and the State moved to declare them unavailable and to admit their depositions.
At trial the district court admitted (1) the depositions under the former‑testimony/unavailable hearsay exception and Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, and (2) Fraise’s dash-cam audio under the excited‑utterance exception; a jury convicted West of reckless use of a firearm and felon-in-possession.
The court sentenced West to consecutive terms without providing specific on-the-record reasons for the consecutive imposition; West appealed challenging admissibility, sufficiency of evidence on intent, and the sentencing procedure.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Fraise and her son "unavailable" so their depositions could be admitted?	State: Yes—subpoenas, warnings, travel assistance, and bus tickets showed good‑faith, reasonable efforts.	West: No—the State should've done more (e.g., tickets for all children, subpoenas via Florida courts).	Held: Witnesses unavailable; State made reasonable, good‑faith efforts. Depositions admissible on that ground.
Did admission of the depositions violate the Confrontation Clause / former‑testimony rule?	State: No—defense had prior opportunity and similar motive to cross‑examine at the depositions.	West: No similar motive at deposition; it was discovery, not a true trial‑style cross.	Held: Defense had opportunity and similar motive; admission did not violate Confrontation Clause.
Was Fraise’s dash‑cam statement admissible hearsay (excited utterance / present sense impression)?	State: Yes—statement made very soon after the shooting while Fraise was upset, crying, and under stress; fits excited‑utterance exception.	West: Hearsay; not admissible.	Held: Circuit court correctly admitted it as an excited utterance; alternatively any error was harmless because the deposition gave substantially the same account.
Was the evidence sufficient to prove West "intentionally" fired the gun (element for reckless use)?	State: Yes—West’s conduct, possession of the gun, the son’s testimony that West pulled the gun, and expert testimony that the gun required substantial pressure to discharge supported intentional firing.	West: No—jury could not reasonably find intentional firing; shooting could have been accidental.	Held: There was substantial evidence to support a finding West intentionally fired the gun; conviction affirmed.
Were consecutive sentences properly imposed without explicit on‑record reasons?	State: The court’s overall sentencing discussion sufficed to show its intent.	West: The court failed to state specific reasons for running sentences consecutively.	Held: Under State v. Hill the court must state specific reasons for consecutive sentences; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial statements admissible only if declarant unavailable and prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (prosecutorial authorities must make good‑faith efforts to obtain witness presence for Confrontation Clause)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (sentencing courts must state on the record specific reasons for imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (hearsay exceptions and harmless‑error principles)
State v. Shipley, 757 N.W.2d 228 (Iowa 2008) (depositions are testimonial; confrontation analysis)