State of Iowa v. John David Green, 15-0871

In 2009 Mark Koster disappeared from his Sac City home; his mummified body was found in 2012 in the basement and identified by dental x-rays; autopsy revealed fractured hyoid and thyroid cartilage consistent with strangulation.
Neighbors reported Koster had been living with a man called “Tom” and a dog; police linked that person to John David Green and located Green in Florida.
Green voluntarily went to a Florida sheriff’s office for an interview with Iowa investigators; he was not given Miranda warnings, was told he could leave, and the interview was nonconfrontational; prosecutors monitored the interview from another room.
During the interview Green eventually admitted living with Koster and said he held a baseball bat to Koster’s throat after being attacked, then moved and concealed the body; he was later arrested and charged with first-degree murder; medical examiner later concluded death by strangulation with a straight, hard object.
Green moved to suppress his Florida statements, arguing his right to counsel attached when prosecutorial focus targeted him (invoking the Sixth Amendment and article 1, § 10 of the Iowa Constitution); the trial court denied suppression and admitted the statements.
At trial Green asserted self-defense; the jury convicted him of second-degree murder. He appeals, raising (1) attachment of right to counsel at the precharge interview and (2) erroneous jury instructions allowing an inference of malice from the use of a dangerous weapon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Sixth Amendment or Iowa Const. art. I, § 10 right to counsel attached before formal charges because prosecutorial focus was on Green	State: Right to counsel under Sixth/State law attaches only after formal initiation of adversary proceedings (indictment, information, arrest) or other objective acts indicating commencement	Green: Prosecutorial focus/adversary involvement in the Florida interview triggered the right to counsel, so uncounseled statements should be suppressed	Denied: Court held no precedent supports accelerating attachment based solely on prosecutorial focus; a criminal “prosecution” did not exist pre-complaint/arrest, so statements admissible
Whether inference instructions (malice from use of dangerous weapon) erroneously allowed conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt	State: Inference instructions are long-established; a deadly weapon intentionally used in a deadly manner supports an inference of malice; instructions were proper here	Green: Instructions allowed jury to infer malice from use of a weapon of opportunity (victim’s bat) and risked relieving State of proving malice beyond reasonable doubt	Denied: Court affirmed instructions, citing long-standing Iowa precedent permitting malice inferences from intentional deadly-weapon use and that jury was instructed on burden and self-defense

State v. Jackson, 380 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1986) (right to counsel attaches when adversarial judicial proceedings begin)
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (cautioned about jury inferences of malice from weapon use; offered hypothetical where inference could be unfair)
State v. Reeves, 636 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 2001) (malice may be inferred from intentional deadly-weapon use in a deadly manner)
State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 (Iowa 1858) (historical recognition that malice can be inferred from the weapon used)
State v. Jeffries, 313 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1981) (addressing surplus caveat in inference instruction language)
State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1993) (acts and means used can support a malice finding)