State of Iowa v. Justin James Zobel, 16-0892

Background

Defendant Justin Zobel was convicted (two domestic-abuse counts after trial; third-degree burglary and possession of marijuana by Alford plea) arising from a July 4, 2015 incident in which the victim, Katie Barnish, sustained a black eye.
Zobel admitted striking Barnish but testified the blow was a reflexive reaction while he was being hit/pulled awake in a child’s bedroom and claimed the contact was accidental or defensive.
Defense requested a jury instruction on the statutory justification/self-defense defense (Iowa Code § 704.3); the trial court refused, finding insufficient evidence to warrant the instruction.
Jury was instructed on specific intent (requiring awareness and voluntariness) and convicted Zobel on both domestic-abuse counts.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms (including prison on felony counts and jail/time for misdemeanors); Zobel appealed, arguing (1) erroneous refusal to give a self-defense instruction and (2) several sentencing errors (improper factors, failure to state reasons for consecutive terms, and discrepancy between oral pronouncement and written judgment on domestic-abuse surcharges).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on justification/self-defense	Zobel: testimony supported a reasonable belief force was necessary; self-defense instruction was warranted	Court: evidence showed an instinctive/accidental reaction, not a reasonable belief that force was necessary	No error; justification instruction not applicable and defendant not prejudiced
Whether instructing on specific intent was inadequate to cover defensive theory	Zobel: needed explicit justification instruction to present self-defense theory	State: specific-intent instruction permitted jury to find lack of criminal intent for assault	Held: specific-intent instruction adequately allowed jury to consider accidental/instinctive conduct
Whether sentencing court considered impermissible factors	Zobel: court improperly relied on its experience with other defendants and defendant’s parental support	State: court’s comments were responsive to mitigation and focused on Zobel’s individual circumstances	No abuse of discretion; considerations were permissible and responsive to defense mitigation
Whether court failed to state reasons for consecutive sentences and imposed illegal sentence by omitting oral surcharges	Zobel: appellate reversal required because reasons were insufficient and written judgment added surcharges omitted at oral pronouncement	State: court stated concise reasons and relied on previously stated grounds; written judgment corrected surcharge omission	No abuse of discretion on consecutive sentences; written judgment remedied surcharge omission so sentence not illegal

Key Cases Cited

Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for jury-instruction refusals)
Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2009) (court must give requested instruction that correctly states law, applies, and is not elsewhere stated)
State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1998) (insufficient evidence of reasonable belief that force was necessary precludes justification instruction)
State v. Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2010) (concise on-the-record sentencing reasons may suffice for review)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (court should state reasons for consecutive sentences and may rely on same reasons supporting incarceration)
State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1995) (a sentence that statutory law does not permit is illegal and void)
State v. Delay, 320 N.W.2d 831 (Iowa 1982) (self-defense justifies only acts that are defensive)