State of Iowa v. Tyjuan Levell Tucker, 19-1919

Background

July 28, 2018: Des Moines officers observed a suspected hand-to-hand exchange near a parking lot; Tucker left abruptly and was stopped.
Officers patted Tucker; a small plastic bag (~1 ounce) of marijuana was recovered from his underwear; $650 in cash was found in the vehicle’s center console.
Tucker told officers the cash came from a recent $6,800 settlement and testified to that at trial; no scales or additional packaging were found in the car.
A jury convicted Tucker of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
On appeal Tucker raised (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) alleged underrepresentation of African‑Americans in the jury pool (fair‑cross‑section claim), (3) ineffective assistance for not presenting expert testimony on jury management, (4) exclusion of settlement documents as a discovery sanction, and (5) exclusion of portions of body‑camera footage.
The district court excluded the late‑produced settlement documents and denied admission of the full body‑camera video; it found insufficient proof of systematic exclusion in the jury process.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Tucker's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for intent to deliver	Evidence (quantity, packaging location, $650 cash, furtive conduct) supports inference of intent to deliver	The amount was small, no scales or packaging; cash was from a settlement	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports conviction (jury could infer intent from cash and circumstances)
Fair‑cross‑section (systematic exclusion)	Jury pool practices (use of voter & driver records) not tied by record to systematic exclusion	Underrepresentation of African‑Americans in pool caused by use of only voter registration and driver’s license lists	Affirmed — Tucker failed to prove a causal tie showing systematic exclusion; first two prongs conceded but third prong unmet
Ineffective assistance for not presenting expert on jury management	Not addressed on merits (State did not defend here)	Counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert evidence tying practices to exclusion	Not considered on direct appeal — claim foreclosed by statute/case law; must be raised in postconviction proceedings
Exclusion of settlement documents (discovery sanction)	Late disclosure prejudiced State; exclusion proper under rule	Documents were critical to show cash was legitimate (rebut intent inference)	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; Tucker testified about the settlement and jury heard his explanation, and admission would have prejudiced State
Exclusion of full body‑camera video (rule of completeness)	Court allowed relevant portion; additional footage was of limited probative value and risked unfair prejudice/confusing the jury	Full video would explain Tucker’s reaction (prior shooting) and rebut inference of guilt	Affirmed — court properly balanced Rule 5.106 against rules 5.403; full footage excluded to avoid confusion, trial‑within‑a‑trial, and improper sympathy appeal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1996) (intent to deliver may be inferred from large unexplained cash and quantity/packaging)
State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa 2005) (jury resolves plausibility of competing explanations)
State v. Thomas, 847 N.W.2d 438 (Iowa 2014) (substantial‑evidence standard review)
State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293 (Iowa 2019) (fair‑cross‑section test and requirement to tie disparity to particular jury management practice)
State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2017) (framework for fair‑cross‑section analysis)
State v. Schuler, 774 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2009) (review of discovery‑sanction exclusions for abuse of discretion)
State v. Belken, 633 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 2001) (undisclosed cumulative evidence is less likely to be prejudicial)
State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 2017) (rule of completeness subject to 5.403 balancing)
State v. Buman, 955 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 2021) (avoid evidence that confuses issues by introducing unrelated interactions)
State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2021) (ineffective‑assistance claims not decided on direct appeal)