Stephen Shawn Keyes, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-0383
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 22, 2017Background
- In 1996 a house fire killed Keyes’s wife and 2-year-old son; Keyes was convicted by jury in 1997 of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to life. Keyes’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, with certain ineffective-assistance claims preserved for postconviction relief (PCR).
- Keyes filed a pro se PCR application in 1999 asserting ineffective assistance for (1) failure to object to evidence of other crimes (check-kiting), (2) failure to adequately cross-examine his then-eight-year-old son Michael about inconsistent statements, and (3) failure to object to warrantless search/seizure of clothing.
- The PCR proceedings were heavily delayed; PCR counsel developed expert criticism of the State fire investigation (Dr. Gerald Hurst, report 2008) and sought to amend the PCR application to add claims based on that report and later on Iowa’s 2011 adoption of NFPA 921.
- The PCR court denied two motions to amend the application (one filed 28 days after a court deadline in 2011; the second filed in 2014 shortly before trial), reasoning the proposed amendments would substantially change the issues and prejudice the State and that the claims were known earlier.
- A 2014 PCR trial addressed only the original 1999 claims; the court denied relief in 2015. On appeal Keyes pressed (1) ineffective assistance for not impeaching/cross-examining Michael and (2) error in denying the motions to amend based on Dr. Hurst’s report and NFPA 921 adoption.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: Keyes failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice on the child-impeachment claim, and the PCR court did not abuse its discretion denying the untimely amendments or treating NFPA-related material as newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Keyes’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach/cross-examine child witness Michael about inconsistent postfire statements | Trial counsel failed an essential duty by not impeaching Michael on three inconsistencies, and that testimony was important to the State’s case | Counsel’s cross-examination was a deliberate, measured trial tactic appropriate for a child witness; no abdication of duty and no prejudice shown | Denied — counsel’s performance fell within reasonable professional norms; Keyes did not prove deficient performance or prejudice |
| Whether the PCR court erred in denying the first motion to amend (filed 28 days after scheduling deadline) to add claims based on Dr. Hurst’s report | The amendment largely restated Hurst’s criticisms of the arson investigation and was timely enough (long before trial); State had been provided the report in 2009 | The amendment came after the scheduling deadline, materially changed the issues, and prejudiced the State; no adequate excuse for delay | Denied — court did not abuse discretion given delay and the substantial change in issues |
| Whether the PCR court erred in denying the second motion to amend (2014) adding NFPA 921–based claims | Iowa’s 2011 adoption of NFPA 921 and later scientific reports constituted newly discovered evidence that undermines the fire investigation and warranted amendment | The NFPA-related material was known or discoverable earlier; the amendment was untimely and would prejudice the State | Denied — not newly discovered in the sense required; amendment would be prejudicial and untimely |
| Whether NFPA 921 adoption and related reports would justify relief as newly discovered evidence | Adoption and later forensic reports would have materially altered the fire-cause assessment and probably changed the verdict | Even if NFPA changes are relevant, the material is cumulative/impeaching; other strong circumstantial evidence of guilt remains; Keyes cannot show a reasonable probability of a different verdict | Denied — NFPA materials are not the kind of watershed newly discovered evidence to meet the high standard for a new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- More v. State, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review and requirements for newly discovered evidence in PCR context)
- Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22 (Iowa 2014) (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (objective standard for counsel performance)
- Baker v. City of Iowa City, 867 N.W.2d 44 (Iowa 2015) (amendments to pleadings should generally be allowed; denial is the exception)
- Glenn v. Carlstrom, 556 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa 1996) (denial of amendment not an abuse where party knew claim earlier and delayed)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (avoid hindsight in judging counsel’s strategy)