State of Iowa v. Lisa Amy McDonald, 15-1690

Background

Lisa McDonald was tried and convicted in July 2015 of assault causing bodily injury after an in-home altercation in which the complaining witness testified McDonald struck and head‑locked her; the witness had visible bruises and cuts photographed by police.
McDonald testified she acted in self‑defense, claiming the witness choked her and she struck to escape; an arresting officer arrested McDonald after McDonald told him she hit the witness once in self‑defense.
During jury deliberations the jury sent two questions asking whether to consider who started the altercation and whether they could review the police report; the court answered but transposed parts of its response and told the jury to consider all instructions together; neither party objected at the time.
After conviction, McDonald’s trial counsel moved to withdraw before sentencing citing a breakdown in communication; McDonald emailed she had no objection to withdrawal and would represent herself, but she did not request substitute counsel at the hearing and did not appear in person; the court denied withdrawal and proceeded to sentence.
The district court sentenced McDonald to 365 days (suspended) and one year probation and later entered a five‑year no‑contact order that exceeded the statutory five‑year period by beginning after judgment day (clerical timing error).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McDonald preserved claim that communication breakdown entitled her to substitute counsel before sentencing	State: McDonald did not request new counsel or properly preserve the issue	McDonald: Counsel’s motion to withdraw and the breakdown amounted to effective lack of counsel; she should have been allowed substitute counsel	Not preserved — McDonald never requested substitute counsel or presented the breakdown to the court as Tejeda requires; claim fails
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to jury instructions that included both specific and general intent language	State: Any omission did not prejudice the defense because intent was not disputed in a way that would change outcome	McDonald: Instructions were confusing/misleading and counsel should have objected	No ineffective assistance — failure to object to instructions did not cause prejudice given record and McDonald’s admissions about intent
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the court’s response to the jury questions (including transposition)	State: Transposition and response, along with direction to reread instructions, did not prejudice the defendant	McDonald: The court’s transposed answers confused the jury and counsel should have objected	No ineffective assistance — McDonald failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome
Whether the no‑contact order exceeded the permissible effective period under Iowa Code § 664A.5	State: court concedes the order’s effective date/duration was erroneous	McDonald: no‑contact order ran beyond five years from judgment date	Court vacated the erroneous no‑contact order and remanded to enter a corrected order effective until five years from judgment

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2004) (recognizes duty to inquire when defendant requests substitute counsel for breakdowns in communication)
State v. Rodriguez, 804 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2011) (ineffective assistance standard and burden to prove counsel failed essential duty and caused prejudice)
State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (consider cumulative effect of counsel’s alleged errors for prejudice analysis)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (defendant must show reasonable probability that counsel’s errors changed outcome)
State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525 (Iowa 1995) (district court may correct clerical errors in judgment entry by nunc pro tunc order)