State of Iowa v. Kevin Deshay Ambrose
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1
| Iowa | 2015Background
- On May 2, 2012, Kevin Ambrose returned to a Waterloo home subject to a no-contact order, armed with a pistol and baseball bat, and shot Marlene Buss (survived) and Kay Straw (died); Ambrose was arrested the next day.
- Ambrose was charged with first-degree murder, two counts of attempted murder, and felon-in-possession of a firearm; he claimed provocation supporting voluntary manslaughter as to at least some counts.
- At trial the court gave (1) an "acquittal-first" transition instruction telling jurors they may consider lesser-included offenses only after unanimously finding the greater offense not guilty, and (2) several inference instructions permitting malice to be inferred from use of a weapon, commission of a felony resulting in death, and similar circumstances.
- Ambrose objected to some but not all instructions; on appeal he argued (a) the acquittal-first instruction misstated the law and prevented fair consideration of lesser offenses, (b) the inference instructions were improper judicial comment on the evidence, and (c) two attempt counts were deficient so the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed preserved errors as law errors and unpreserved objections under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework, and affirmed conviction and sentence (life without parole for murder plus terms on other counts).
Issues
| Issue | Ambrose's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acquittal-first transition instruction | Instruction prevented proper jury consideration of lesser-included offenses (e.g., provocation manslaughter) and misstates law | Instruction was permissible and helped jurors sequence deliberations; any error not preserved | Error not preserved; under ineffective-assistance standard no prejudice shown — instruction harmless given overwhelming evidence and jury was informed of provocation defense |
| Inference instructions (malice from weapon/use of felony/natural results) | Instructions unduly comment on evidence and highlight particular facts, risking improper inference | Instructions are supported by Iowa precedent and bar association model; appropriate given facts | Instructions were lawful and not reversible error; they fit the case facts and distinct offenses to which they applied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object to some instructions) | Counsel failed essential duty by not objecting to all inference and transition instructions | If instructions correct as law, no ineffective assistance; otherwise defendant must show prejudice | No prejudicial error; ineffective-assistance claim fails because no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (sufficiency of attempt counts) | Attempt-to-murder counts failed to describe offense, so court lacked jurisdiction | Information clearly styled a criminal proceeding within district court jurisdiction; no timely challenge at trial | Information sufficed; subject-matter jurisdiction existed; claim raised too late to undermine trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 2013) (standard for reviewing jury instruction challenges)
- State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims as exception to preservation rules)
- King v. State, 797 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 2011) (Strickland standard and de novo review for ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 2013) (definition and limits of "serious provocation" for voluntary manslaughter)
- State v. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 1983) (malice may be inferred from commission of a felony resulting in death)
- State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287 (Iowa 1858) (longstanding precedent that malice may be inferred from the weapon used)