929 N.W.2d 646
Iowa2019Background
- Defendant Lee Christensen, tried by jury in Emmet County for the June 2015 killing of Thomas Bortvit; jury convicted him of second-degree murder.
- Key evidence: defendant’s family statements that he admitted killing Bortvit and led police to the body; .45 pistol and cartridge evidence recovered from defendant’s property; victim’s DNA on gun grip.
- Midtrial incidents: (1) anonymous tip that juror K.B. told others she was sure defendant was guilty (investigation produced hearsay; K.B. denied making such statements when questioned in chambers); (2) a prosecutor’s question elicited testimony that physical evidence was available for others to test (defense objected as shifting burden); (3) investigator Wagner gave inconsistent testimony about use of a metal detector and later clarified after being recalled.
- After verdict, a widely viewed Facebook post and other community comments alleging potential “riot” if a particular verdict were not returned prompted a postverdict jury poll; several jurors reported hearing about possible disturbances either from outside sources or via other jurors, though timing and source were often uncertain and largely hearsay.
- District court denied motions for new trial (juror disqualification, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct/bias). Court of Appeals reversed on juror misconduct; Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed the district court, vacating the court of appeals decision.
Issues
| Issue | Christensen’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror disqualification (K.B.) | K.B.’s evasive answers and an anonymous note alleging she said defendant was guilty warranted disqualification/new trial | No direct evidence K.B. made the statements; district court credibility finding should stand | No disqualification; appellate court defers to district court findings—no reliable proof K.B. actually made the out-of-court statements |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Scott testimony) | Asking whether evidence was available for others to test impermissibly suggested defendant must prove innocence; prejudicial even after strike/instruction | Question counselled by Craig; curative instruction sufficed | Error crossed line (per Hanes) but was isolated and cured by prompt strike and instruction; no new trial |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Wagner testimony) | Wagner’s misleading testimony about metal-detector use was false and prejudicial | No proof State knew testimony false; Wagner’s credibility damaged and clarified on recall | No new trial: no showing State knowingly presented false evidence; district court remedied by recalling witness and admonishing jury |
| Jury misconduct/bias (Facebook/riot rumors) | Extraneous social-media rumors and juror-to-juror repetition of threats of violence during trial/deliberations created reasonable probability verdict affected; Remmer presumption should apply | Many jurors heard rumors only after verdict or second-hand; discussion was vague/hearsay, brief, and objectively unlikely to have affected verdict; strong state evidence | No reasonable probability verdict would differ absent rumors. Remmer presumption not applied; Cullen reasonable-probability test controlling; no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (establishes rule on extraneous communications to jurors; juror may testify whether extraneous influence occurred)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (presumption of prejudice from private communications with juror; government bears heavy burden to show harmlessness)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (posttrial hearing to prove actual bias; clarified limits of Remmer presumption)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (error affecting jury function requires showing it affected substantial rights; no automatic reversal for some intrusions)
- State v. Cullen, 357 N.W.2d 24 (Iowa three-pronged test for juror misconduct: objective proof; exceeds tolerable deliberation bounds; calculated to and with reasonable probability did influence verdict)
- State v. Webster, 865 N.W.2d 223 (discusses juror misconduct/bias standards and admonitions re: social media)
- State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545 (prosecutor may not shift burden of proof to defendant)
- State v. Carey, 165 N.W.2d 27 (appearance-related error in jury context; heightened concern for outside manipulation)
- Doe v. Johnston, 476 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa rejects presumption of prejudice for minimal extraneous material; focus on objective effect on typical juror)