State of Iowa v. James Alon Shorter
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 37
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Victim Richard Daughenbaugh was assaulted by a large crowd near the Des Moines River on Aug. 24–25, 2013 and later died from internal injuries; several people, including James Shorter, were charged with second-degree murder.
- At Shorter’s trial the State presented eyewitness testimony (Perkins, L.S., B.B.) and Detective Peak’s testimony that Shorter admitted kicking the victim; defense witnesses disputed Shorter’s presence or participation.
- The jury was instructed on three theories: principal liability, aiding and abetting, and joint criminal conduct, and returned a general verdict convicting Shorter of second-degree murder.
- On appeal the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed based on insufficiency of the joint criminal conduct theory (relying on State v. Tyler); the State sought further review.
- Shorter also raised ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel failed to object when Perkins identified him despite minutes of testimony not stating an identification, (2) counsel failed to move for a mistrial, (3) counsel and the court discussed a jury question when Shorter was absent, and (4) counsel failed to request an eyewitness-identification jury instruction.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals’ decision, and affirmed the district court conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shorter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency as principal | Evidence that Shorter stomped/kicked the victim and admitted kicking supports conviction; aggregate causation applies. | Eyewitness ID unreliable; no proof Shorter delivered fatal blow to abdomen; presence alone insufficient. | Substantial evidence supports principal liability (aggregate/factual causation; foreseeability). |
| Sufficiency as aider/abettor | Participation in beating and remaining with crowd shows assent/encouragement. | Mere presence is insufficient; no proof Shorter encouraged or aided others. | Evidence sufficient to support aiding-and-abetting theory. |
| Sufficiency of joint criminal conduct instruction | Joint conduct instruction appropriate where participants act together; not reversible if verdict necessarily rests on principal/aid theories. | Instruction unsupported because no evidence Shorter acted in concert with initial assailant; flawed instruction requires retrial. | Even if joint instruction weak, no reversal because, given facts, conviction necessarily could rest on Shorter’s own conduct as principal/aider (Jackson rule). |
| Minutes disclosure / Perkins ID & counsel failure to object | Minutes notified defense Perkins witnessed the assault; in-court ID consistent with minutes; any defect not prejudicial on record. | Minutes did not disclose that Perkins would identify Shorter; counsel ineffective for failing to object/move for mistrial; prejudice shown by surprise and possible impeachment material. | Eyewitness ID must be disclosed in minutes generally, but factual uncertainties preclude resolving ineffective-assistance/prejudice on direct appeal; claim remanded to PCR for development. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tyler, 873 N.W.2d 741 (Iowa 2016) (reversal required where joint criminal conduct instruction was unsupported and could have tainted a general verdict)
- State v. Jackson, 587 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 1998) (no reversal for erroneous joint-conduct instruction where verdict must have rested on defendant’s own conduct)
- State v. Walker, 281 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 1979) (adoption of more demanding rule on pretrial minutes disclosure; surprise testimony beyond minutes may require exclusion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (U.S. 2014) (aggregate-causation concept recognizing combined acts of multiple wrongdoers can produce liability)