State of Iowa v. Jason Shimar Keys
15-1991
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- On Dec. 4, 2014 a confidential informant (Hjelle), wearing a wire and given marked buy money, purchased 0.81 grams of methamphetamine in a controlled buy from the defendant, Jason Keys; officers surveilled the buy visually and via live audio.
- Officers field-tested and later laboratory-tested the substance; Keys was later arrested and, during a recorded post‑arrest interview, discussed possible cooperation to "move up the chain" and at one point was told by the officer that making controlled buys could make charges "go away." Portions of the interview after that promise were suppressed at trial.
- At trial the jury heard the informant, officers (including voice/visual identification and audio interpretation), and Keys (who denied selling), and convicted Keys of delivery of methamphetamine; the district court denied a new trial.
- After trial, original audio exhibits (State’s exhibits 1, 7, 8) were lost from the record submitted to the supreme court; the district court authorized substitute copies after a hearing and found them accurate.
- On appeal Keys raised evidentiary and ineffective‑assistance claims, argued insufficiency of identity evidence, and contended the district court applied the wrong standard (sufficiency rather than weight) on the motion for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Keys) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pre‑promise post‑arrest statements (promise‑of‑leniency vs. Rule 5.408) | Pre‑promise portions admissible; Rule 5.408 inapplicable because this was not plea bargaining. | Entire conversation was part of compromise/negotiation and inadmissible under Rule 5.408; or promise began earlier when discussing "options"/"move up the chain." | Court applied promise‑of‑leniency standard and held pre‑promise portions admissible; promise existed only when officer offered benefit (charges "go away"). |
| Foundation for testimony on fingerprinting cellophane bags and controlled‑buy experience/interpretation of audio | Witnesses had personal knowledge to testify about fingerprinting attempts, controlled‑buy procedure, and lay interpretations of audio. | Lacked proper foundation/expertise for fingerprinting testimony; audio interpretation and voice ID lacked foundation. | No abuse of discretion: testimony was within lay‑witness/perception and personal‑knowledge bounds. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple alleged omissions) | Counsel’s choices were within reasonable trial strategy; record inadequate to resolve cumulative prejudice on direct appeal. | Counsel failed to object to prior‑bad‑acts evidence, impeach informant on certain matters, challenge text messages, voice ID foundation, and prosecutorial misconduct, causing prejudice. | Record insufficient to evaluate strategic reasons and cumulative prejudice; ineffective‑assistance claims preserved for postconviction relief. |
| Sufficiency of evidence (identity) / Judgment of acquittal denial | Evidence (informant ID, officer observations, audio comparisons) was sufficient to support conviction. | State failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. | Substantial evidence supported identity; denial of acquittal affirmed. |
| Motion for new trial standard & substitute exhibits accuracy | District court applied sufficiency standard in denying new trial (erroneously); substitute recordings were accurate. | Court applied wrong standard (should assess weight of evidence); substituted audio omitted an alleged officer statement. | Remanded for district court to apply weight‑of‑evidence standard on new trial motion; substitute exhibits affirmed as accurate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howard, 825 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 2012) (promise‑of‑leniency doctrine: inadmissibility when influenced by threat or promise)
- State v. Polk, 812 N.W.2d 670 (Iowa 2012) (review standard for promise‑of‑leniency rulings)
- State v. McCoy, 692 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2005) (promise crosses line when officer explains advantage to be gained)
- State v. Burt, 249 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 1977) (Rule 5.408 ordinarily inapplicable outside plea‑bargain contexts)
- State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 2016) (proper standard for motion for new trial is weight of the evidence)
- State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (evaluate cumulative effect of counsel errors for prejudice)
- State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (multi‑factor test for prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct)
- State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2008) (no duty to raise meritless objections; ineffective assistance framework)