Tracey Anne Richter, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-1800
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- In 2001 Tracey Richter shot and killed Dustin Wehde, claiming self‑defense; she was charged with first‑degree murder in 2011 and convicted; conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Richter filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application asserting several ineffective‑assistance and due‑process claims tied to trial and appellate counsel and to prosecutorial conduct.
- Key contested evidence included a reconstruction exhibit (a colored‑dot model) with a misplaced dot purporting to show an exit wound, autopsy photos/medical report showing the correct exit wound, and a pink notebook found in Wehde’s car whose contents Richter knew about.
- Trial counsel had previously represented Richter in a wrongful death civil suit and learned of the notebook in civil discovery; the prosecution argued Richter’s knowledge of notebook contents suggested fabrication of the home‑invasion story.
- Richter argued (1) trial counsel failed to confront the State’s reconstruction expert (Englert) about the exhibit, (2) trial counsel should have withdrawn and testified about the notebook, (3) the prosecutor suppressed impeaching evidence about Englert, and (4) appellate counsel missed several viable appellate issues.
- The district court denied relief adopting the State’s proposed findings; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reviewing ineffective‑assistance and due‑process claims de novo while scrutinizing the record closely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not cross‑examining reconstruction expert about misplaced dot | Richter: counsel should have impeached Englert on the exhibit error which undermined his positioning opinion | State: exhibit was introduced by defense, Englert’s testimony and autopsy showed correct exit wound; no prejudice | Denied — no deficient performance or prejudice |
| Trial counsel should have withdrawn/testified (necessary witness) re: pink notebook | Richter: counsel, who learned of notebook in civil discovery, was necessary to show alternate source of her knowledge | State: counsel was not sole source; others (mother) could testify; counsel never learned contents; withdrawal would have harmed defense | Denied — no duty to withdraw, testimony would be cumulative, no prejudice |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / Brady suppression re: impeachment material about Englert | Richter: prosecutor failed to investigate/produce publicly available records showing Englert’s questionable testimony elsewhere | State: information was publicly available (not suppressed); civil suit and other trial history not material to guilt or credibility sufficiently to change outcome | Denied — no suppression or materiality, no Brady violation |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising various issues (hearsay, redactions, civil suit evidence, trial counsel failures) | Richter: appellate counsel omitted meritorious claims that would have succeeded on direct appeal | State: issues were meritless or non‑strategic (e.g., notebook not hearsay; civil suit irrelevant; redaction issues untenable) | Denied — appellate strategy reasonable; omitted claims lacked merit or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (prosecutor’s duty to disclose favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (conflict‑of‑interest standards when multiple representation may affect counsel's duty)
- Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (trial court’s duty to inquire when a conflict is suspected to ensure due process)
- State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (prosecutor’s duty to assure a fair trial and analysis of prosecutorial misconduct vs error)
- DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2011) (Brady/Giglio framework: suppression, favorability, and materiality analysis)