State Of Iowa Vs. Robert L. Hanes, 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 112

Background

Hanes was convicted by jury of willful injury causing serious injury under Iowa Code 708.4(1) following an April 28, 2007 incident with Nathan Taylor.
Trial evidence featured conflicting accounts: Taylor testified Hanes accused him of taking $2.25 for gizzards, threatened to kill, and stabbed Taylor; Hanes claimed self-defense after Taylor struck him and that he did not know Taylor.
The district court gave a penalty instruction listing various punishments, some not available for a forcible felony; defense objected that those options were inappropriate for the charged crime.
Hanes raised multiple trial errors on direct appeal, including the penalty instruction and hearsay issues; the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed; Hanes sought further review.
The supreme court resolved that the penalty instruction was improper and prejudicial, reversing the conviction and remanding for a new trial; several other issues were discussed or left for retrial.
The court also addressed preservation and harmless-error standards, noting nonconstitutional errors are reviewed under a prejudice-based harmless-error approach, while constitutional errors require reversal beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Penalty instruction on punishment improper	Hanes argues the penalty instruction improperly suggested punishments not available, prejudicing the verdict.	Hanes maintains the instruction could mislead jurors about sentencing and de-emphasize the verdict’s gravity.	Instruction improper and prejudicial; reversed and remanded for new trial.
Admission of medical-diagnosis statements preservation	Hanes contends nurse-practitioner statements should have been admitted under medical-diagnosis hearsay exception.	State argues issue preserved but contested admissibility.	Addressed; reversal on other grounds; not necessary to resolve preservation here.
Serious-injury definition instruction	Hanes claims the “serious injury” instruction improperly added “if left untreated” and “including scarring.”	State defends statutory language and uniform instructions.	Instruction not consistent with statutory definition; retrial should track statutory term.
Specific-intent instruction timing	Hanes asserts the last sentence allowing intent before the act improperly broadens causation of intent.	State contends other parts require intent at time of act.	Although problematic, court did not resolve due to reversal on other grounds; retrial should exclude the broadened standard.
Prosecution closing argument shifting burden	State purportedly shifted burden by noting defense could have called witnesses the defense did not call.	Defense contends prosecutorial rebuttal mischaracterized burden of proof.	Prosecutor’s statements improper; noted but not dispositive given reversal on other grounds.

Key Cases Cited

Purcell v. State, 195 Iowa 272 (1923) (trial court should not instruct on punishment; if instructed, penalties must be correct and limited)
O’Meara v. State, 190 Iowa 613 (1920) (jury should not consider penalty in determining guilt)
Hatter v. State, 381 N.W.2d 370 (Iowa Ct.App.1985) (penalties not proper jury consideration; misstatement of law prejudicial)
Paredes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 554 (Iowa 2009) (nonconstitutional error reviewed for prejudice; miscarriage of justice standard)
Piper v. State, 663 N.W.2d 894 (Iowa 2003) (prejudice standard for instructional error when not constitutional; improper but sometimes harmless)
Davis v. State, 228 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 1975) (error presumed prejudicial unless proven otherwise; constitutional standard)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (harmlessness review for constitutional errors: harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
State v. Traywick, 468 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1991) (constitutional errors require beyond reasonable doubt prejudice)
State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2004) (nonconstitutional error reviewed for prejudice; miscarriage of justice standard)
State v. Schuler, 774 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2009) (applies harmless-error framework to nonconstitutional jury-instruction errors)
State v. Leins, 234 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa 1975) (harmful effect of conflicting jury instructions; prejudice analysis)
State v. Johnson, 183 N.W.2d 194 (Iowa 1971) (harmless error when curative admonishment given)