State of Iowa v. Kenneth Osborne Ary
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 43
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Kenneth Osborne Ary was convicted by a jury of three counts of delivery of a controlled substance (Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(c)(3)) after three controlled buys using a confidential informant.
- Pretrial: arraigned Nov 20; discovery/deposition deadlines ran 40 days after arraignment; counsel was appointed late and missed those deadlines; court granted a one-week extension to decide on additional discovery but defense filed notice one day late and the court denied further discovery without a hearing.
- Voir dire: prospective juror J.W. volunteered lengthy, strongly anti-drug-defendant views (including that he generally believed drug defendants guilty); comments occurred in front of the panel and in hallway; another panelist A.H. expressed pro-legalization views.
- Court denied defendant’s mid-day motion to disqualify the entire panel, later struck J.W. for cause after individual questioning; most empaneled jurors were not individually asked whether J.W.’s statements affected them.
- After conviction, Ary moved for a new trial arguing (1) juror taint denied him an impartial jury, (2) court abused discretion by refusing a hearing on discovery deadline, (3) ineffective assistance because counsel missed the deadline, and (4) the district court applied the sufficiency standard rather than the weight-of-the-evidence standard in denying the new-trial motion.
- Iowa Supreme Court: affirmed district court on jury impartiality and discovery-hearing issues, found counsel breached an essential duty but remanded ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction proceedings, and reversed/remanded on the new-trial standard issue (district court used wrong standard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ary) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury was impartial after J.W.’s voir dire statements | Court did not abuse discretion; adequate follow-up questioning occurred | J.W.’s expert-like, prejudicial voir dire statements tainted entire panel and required mistrial | Held for State: no presumption of taint; court afforded individualized voir dire and struck J.W.; conviction stands on this ground |
| Whether court abused discretion by denying hearing to show cause for missed discovery deadline | Denial appropriate because defense missed extended deadline, offered no timely excuse, and trial date near | Denial deprived Ary of needed depositions and discovery; hearing required | Held for State: no abuse of discretion; counsel’s late filing and lack of prompt explanation justified denial |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for missing discovery deadline | State contends record insufficient to show prejudice | Counsel breached duty (lack of diligence) and missed deadline; prejudice unclear on record | Mixed: court found breach of an essential duty but remanded ineffective-assistance claim for postconviction review because record cannot resolve prejudice now |
| Whether district court applied correct standard on motion for new trial (weight vs. sufficiency) | Court agrees it applied sufficiency standard in denying motion | Court should have applied weight-of-the-evidence standard assessing credibility and whether evidence preponderates against verdict | Held for Ary (procedural): district court applied wrong standard; judgment reversed as to that ruling and remanded to apply weight-of-the-evidence standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Mach v. Stewart, 137 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1997) (voir dire statements by a prospective juror can taint the panel; further voir dire required to assess infection)
- United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (1936) (impartiality is a state of mind; no fixed formula for testing juror impartiality)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (Sixth Amendment guarantees trial by impartial jury)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998) (explains weight-of-the-evidence standard for new-trial motions)