State v. Deases

public conspiracy con- conviction because substantive conviction into her session conspired sec- asserts that Iowa Code offense she commit was not She viction. merg- requires public that the converse identical to the substantive offense 706.4 tion possession into the ing conspiracy of which she was convicted. of occurred. should have Iowa conviction AFFIRMED. states: section 706.4 Code Multiple convictions. public commit of- conspiracy

A separate an offense and distinct

fense is might any public offense which pursuant conspiracy. to such

committed sen- person not be convicted and conspiracy and for tenced both Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, STATE public offense. inappo- conclude that this statute is We on count I of a Smith was convicted

site. DEASES, Rico Defendant- offense, pos- misdemeanor lesser-included Appellant. Smith session of a controlled substance. No. 90-414. charged II convicted on count of the manufacture, offense, conspiracy to felony Appeals Court of of Iowa. deliver, possess or with intent to manufac- 25, 1991. intent or deliver cocaine. The added ture public offense makes element in the latter entirely than the former. Had

it different II under count

Smith been convicted

conspiracy as defined in section 706.1 to cocaine in violation of section 204.-

possess

401(3) (for which she was convicted I), apply then section 706.4 would

count

merge conspiracy into the substantive generally

offense. See State Water- 51-52

bury, 307 N.W.2d 706.4, legislature at enacting section

In implicitly public that the of-

least assumed was convicted

fense of which the defendant public be the same offense which

would convicted of con-

the defendant

spiring to commit. court did not err hold that the trial

refusing suppress evidence obtained or the search of the hotel room

through obtaining In the war- purse.

defendant’s room, supply police did not

rant for the and did show

false or reckless information

probable cause. As for search reasonably police detained and

purse, execution of a

searched further hold search warrant. We

valid refusing not err in trial court did

that the felony conspiracy merge possession misdemeanor into her

conviction Moines, Dunahoo, L. Des for de-

Kermit fendant-appellant. Gen., Campbell, Atty. Ann E.

Bonnie J. Brenden, Gen., Atty. Mary E. Rich- Asst. Houchins, ards, County Atty., and Michael Atty., plaintiff-appellee. County Asst. OXBERGER, C.J., Heard HABHAB, SACKETT and JJ. SACKETT, Judge.

Defendant, degree mur- convicted of first der, appeal charge should contends on been dismissed because the State have trial re- comply failed with if the quirements. He further contends dismissed, charge is he should admis- granted a new trial because of the prejudicial sion certain evidence. affirm.

Defendant-appellant Ruben Deases was murdering Ann Gard- convicted of Jennifer ner, Eustaguio Deases’s his older brother alleg- brother Edward girlfriend. A second edly him in the murder which assisted brother, fourteen- by a third witnessed Johnny testified year-old Johnny Deases. trial. at bags. testimony jury put body From the Edward and Ruben following could have found the facts. The the shower and took off Jennifer’s clothes. Eustaguio Johnny having Jennifer with later victim lived observed Ruben sex Eustaguio drugs. During Johnny Ames. dealt next time saw Day 1989, Johnny, body just p.m. Memorial weekend of before 11:00 on the visiting night and Ruben all in Eus- Edward were 28th. Jennifer’s was in taguio’s Eustaguio running home. flew to Texas the shower with hot water on it. morning May Later all three brothers to the went

Jennifer, Johnny, Edward, They and defendant home of Chris Cox and used cocaine. apartment left in the in Ames. Ed- asked Cox what to do with a dead were They they him argued. ward and Jennifer Each accused told had killed Jennifer. living Johnny left Eustaguio. the other of off Jennifer Ruben and Edward until 2:30 p.m. day the next at another friend’s. made a racial insult toward the Deases Johnny picked up family. pulled gun When was he heard Ed- pointed She a and it at ward tell the host he had cut Jennifer’s argument the three brothers. The subsid- Johnny head off. When asked it were put gun away into a ed. She and went true, Ruben said it was. Then the three they The three brothers decided bedroom. Eustaguio’s returned to apart- brothers get needed to rid of her. Edward wanted Johnny body ment. was told Jennifer’s dealing. Eustaguio drug to work with bag Johnny was in a trash black had ob- Johnny Edward and Ruben decided should served. because, juvenile, kill as a he Jennifer penalty. receive a less severe Ru-

would surprised Edward and Ruben were Johnny go up told behind Jennifer ben report learn from a radio that Jennifer’s Johnny agreed, and choke her to death. already head been found. Edward was bring into the could not went bedroom but pleased reports the radio indicated because to do it. himself body decapitated had been with a fine cut. not, When he told Ruben he would Ru- angry. ben was About fifteen minutes la- day p.m. Johnny’s At about 6:00 that

ter, living Jennifer came back to the room they going put told him were brothers sat on the couch. and Ruben went behind body what was left of in water. Jennifer’s picked up her and her off the in a couch friend, got large Edward a from a box choke hold. He held her in midair about telling him body he needed it for Jennifer’s legs forty-five seconds as she kicked her they had killed her. Later that because gasped Johnny and for air. asked Ruben evening, splash a loud witness heard go. to let her Ruben said it was too late. later, days Lake. Little Wall Several Jen- put floor. Her face Ruben Jennifer on the in Little nifer’s beheaded was found dragged was blue. Ruben and Edward her Wall Lake. in the bathroom. She had a bowel move- apprehended, he After Ruben was was regained ment and consciousness. She juvenile facility taken to a detention where

pushed up herself off the floor. tried She making up rap songs. he was heard One speak; coming blood was from her thought “she she was cool and I was a was prevent mouth. Ruben used his foot to her fool, and I’m and now she dead ahead.” getting up. got and Edward belt Another, girl “I named knew Jennifer loop put loop made a with the belt. He a dancer. Gardner. She was She was around Jennifer’s neck while Ruben held off, going my my to mark brother brother tugged his her down with foot. Edward on in, doing I’m He did her and now time.” belt, his foot on Jennifer’s After head. picked also used to the effect he had words so, strangling for a or Jennifer minute up eyes and the head and closed said Edward handed the belt to Ruben. Ruben bitch, “sorry, way.” it had to but pulled on the himself. then belt telling another Ruben was also overheard gal gathered “helped

The three brothers then of the he had kill this Jenni- students belongings put helped fer’s them in trash behead her.” degree in of section 707.- the first violation

I. 2(1) charged by that he was is the State first contention Ruben’s name, Deases. true Ruben require- speedy trial comply with failed to 22, 1989, attorney county On June dismissed. should be the case ments and the informa- to amend filed another motion murder when the seventeen was spelling from Rueben change the tion to Consequently, he was under occurred. Deases. The trial Deases to Ruben He was juvenile court. jurisdiction August On the correction. ordered the murder. 1989 for arrested dismiss, claiming defendant moved concerning Ruben filed petition August On speedy trial violation. filed a motion to The State court. juvenile motion was overruled. court. to adult of Ruben jurisdiction waive Fi- granted. motion to amend was State’s 19, 1989. granted on June motion was actual amend- nally August an adult, had earlier Edward, who naming Ruben filed ed information was attorney’s infor- county charged by a found, judge to contain by the trial 19, day Ruben was June mation. On to convict. sufficient evidence court, county attor- to adult transferred plead to the amended refused to Ruben to amend Edward’s for leave ney moved on response filed information in a written as a Ruben Deases to add trial information 5, arraigned The court September 1989. attorney presented county The defendant. guilty plea on his entered a not Ruben and substituted amended and judge an with 14. The September in on behalf an order information, name as a co- adding Ruben’s to have presumed order noted Ruben was information. trial on Edward’s speedy trial unless he subse- demanded a approve the amended judge did The it. All deadlines for dis- quently waived information. motions, speedy trial covery, pretrial filed a motion attorney then county The September 14. commence from were to brief The motion was to amend. for leave motion to dismiss Ruben filed a second page order on the same an and contained 5, 179(b) September motion on and a rule read: which 179(b) granted motion was 1989. The rule June, 1989, the day of ON THIS NOW 19, 1989, and the record was September hereby the State does ORDER Court nor to reflect that neither Ruben corrected Amend the Trial granted leave to Iowa is attorneys copy of an had received above-captioned case in the Information information until approved amended trial in Deases as defendant by adding Ruben motion to dismiss August 31. The second previously filed. information the trial September 1989. was overruled order. The order judge signed this The court erred contends the trial Defendant entirety 1989. in its on June was filed the trial failing grant in a dismissal of to the trial information No amendment speedy of a of lack information because Deases Edward filed. On contends error was indictment. Defendant the June 19 order resistance to filed a raised both before preserved, that it was trial informa- to amend his granting leave information was filed. and after the trial as a defendant. Edward add Ruben tion to of reasons argues The for a number to amend June 19 motion contended the reject the preserved. We error was not 27, 1989, July the trial timely. On was not argument and address defendant’s State’s of June the order vacated claim. did not granting to amend. Ruben leave hearing on two participate proceeding. in this filed motions to dismiss Ruben July no trial grounds: set for there was separate on the motion to amend was days of hearing place. forty-five The did not take information filed within court, (2) the 21, 1989, juvenile Meanwhile, on June Ruben his transfer trial infor- to refile an amended arraignment recited State failed filed a written which mandatory twenty-day mation within the copy of the trial Ruben had received 10(6)(c)after R.Crim.P. period under Iowa him murder charging information See id. 27, 1989, prosecution. vacating immunity from July order on 19, 1989, is not granting speedy leave to indictment rule intended to be of June order See State v. trap information. The trial officials. used to amend Cennon, failure to good found cause for file the trial information. promptly Speed trying sepa- the accused is not a vacating judge also found the order prime rate consideration. The considera- apply to 19 order did not Ruben. the June justice public. tion is to the accused and the information contends the trial Pines See Speed justice. is an attribute of have been dismissed because lack should Woodbury v. District in and Court filing speedy indictment. County, 233 Iowa (1943). public policy of this It burden to show is State’s 27(2) State as set forth Iowa R.Crim.P. is speedy good delay cause for a indict prosecutions to ensure criminal be conclud- Hunziker, ment. See State v. Hunziker, possible time. the earliest App.1981). there Whether speedy at 694. This indictment depends cause on the reason for protecting rule thus is broader than Id. delay. surrounding circumstances rights, individual defendant’s thus not re- strength for the affect the of the reason quiring prejudice to a defendant the rea- short, Id. delay. delay If the has been was insufficient. Id. Even a delay son for it, prejudiced by and the defendant was not day, preju- delay short of one lack of has not demanded a and the defendant dice, speedy and the lack of a demand for trial, consti a weaker reason will indictment will not turn an insufficient rea- Nonetheless, if Id. good cause. the tute Id. delay son for into a sufficient one. insufficient, delay is these reason for the factors will not avoid dismissal. Id. other right speedy for the to trial in Provisions arbitrary 45-day limit cannot be violat The 27(2), provided Iowa are in Iowa R.Crim.P. showing of even “a little bit” without a part: in provides applicable which Sassman, v. good cause. State 226 public policy It is the of the state 1975). (Iowa N.W.2d 809 prosecutions con- Iowa that criminal be good cause for the The trial court found possible time con- cluded at the earliest against delay filing in the trial information parties. a fair trial to both sistent with good will constitute this defendant. What Applications for dismissals under filing late of a trial cause to excuse the by prosecut- made the subsection be depends upon the individual information ing attorney by or the defendant or the v. State case. circumstances of each motion. court on its own Cf. (Iowa 1976). 579, 581 Goff, 244 N.W.2d is arrested for the a. When adult offense, or, in the public of a commission “good discussing cause” the Cases child, juvenile the case of a when give speedy trial claims us some context of waiving jurisdiction pur- Finn, 469 N.W.2d enters an order v. See State guidance. 232.45, and Dickerson, Code section 1991); suant Iowa v. (Iowa State 694 him against 1981); an indictment is not found State (Iowa 528-29 313 N.W.2d must (Iowa forty-five days, the court within Hathaway, 257 N.W.2d 736 v. dismissed, Nelson, 222 prosecution to be order the State v. 1977); N.W.2d contrary is good cause to the (Iowa unless 449 right or the defendant waives his shown are for the speedy The trial rules thereto. by rights of an accused protection of the argues they did com The first State guarantees of implementing constitutional argues they ply the rule. The State Gebhart, 257 Iowa with v. State speedy trial. a trial equivalent of complied because the (1965). 909 134 N.W.2d all relevant on file at information was rules, the de meant to shield These while the combination The State contends delays, intend times. unjust are not fendant from the June information and which, trial through techni Edward’s ed to be device constitut- granting leave to amend 19 order calities, can obtain absolute a defendant 96 Hines, v. cause), contrast State good The 225 information. trial

ed a constructive (Iowa 1975); Goff, State v. 244 authority support this N.W.2d 156 no State has cited Leonard, (Iowa State v. 1976); There is anoth- 579 find none. N.W.2d position, and we v. (Iowa 1976); State argument. the The June problem er (Iowa 1975); Wright, State the trial court on 234 N.W.2d vacated 19 order was Sassman, (Iowa 1975). v. trial July 27, the court deter- 1989. While not vacated as mined the order was Delay human error and attributable to Ruben, to determine we are unable misunderstandings have been found to also only infor- The trial basis for this decision. Peter- State v. good In constitute cause. Au- against was filed mation filed sen, (Iowa 1980), a trial 288 N.W.2d 332 The gust 31, trial information was 1989. period speedy trial set. date within filed. timely not attorney The defense was scheduled to be day, trial same is another on the question need address only we quested prosecutor’s con- consent shown for the good cause was whether a tinuance. Petersen prosecu- delay. this issue is to see review on Our tor a written motion for continu- advised determination the trial whether Id. required. be than ance would Rather supported by court is substantial evidence motion, filing made ar- Dickerson, defense counsel v. record. See State in the rangements present to be scheduled 1981); State 528-29 Meanwhile, trial date. Id. prosecutor Brandt, (Iowa 1977). 253 N.W.2d believed the case had been continued good cause for the court found trial accordance with the earlier conversation against delay filing the information try day, unable the case that and was this defendant. rescheduling necessitating the case delay necessary It that period. on a date outside the in order for it to attributable to defendant Id. v. La- cause. See State good constitute good supreme found cause Plant, light delay, particularly of the sur- to the can delays Certain attributable delay rounding that circumstances Ege, cause. constitute short, (14 (2) days) relatively was defendant (Iowa 1979) (State to N.W.2d 350 entitled trial, (3) speedy did he not demand a and delay necessary prepare insanity to on is- prejudiced by delay. was not the sue, insanity defendant filed notice where these circumstances think Under we motions); permitted for such day on last good there was cause. The first Albertsen, (Iowa State v. N.W.2d 94 228 passed on the basis of an hon- date was 1975)(delay by pretrial appeal by a caused misunderstanding of counsel. The est good the State sufficient to constitute prosecutor reasonably that the believed cause). attorney the case defendant’s wanted jus- Delays to the criminal attributable file and a motion for continued was system including by tice those occasioned — continuance. human disabilities and illness—have been good The State contends cause has been found to constitute cause for a actively defendant con- shown because the Stanley, violation. State v. 351 been tributed to error which would have (Iowa App.1984); v. State N.W.2d 539 (2) truthful, he or discovered: Bond, (Iowa 1983); N.W.2d 340 279 he he even had been silent where was Newman, State v. (Iowa 257 N.W.2d 31 expected speak (arraignment), its after 1977); Hathaway, v. State 257 N.W.2d claims defen- occurrence. State the Thomas, (Iowa 1977); State 736 222 he fostered the notion was satisfied dant (Iowa 1974); 492 State v. Jen- N.W.2d prosecution. of this with the institution nings, (Iowa 1972) N.W.2d (non-chronic This congestion” arising clearly dropped “court the ball. out The State gath- unique, non-recurring events a horrendous crime. State which may presented substantial and damn- only delay sult in a short constitute ered and guilt. challenged But testimony of the defendant’s ing evidence came in filing charge bound through a is Johnny, who said twenty the about rules, obligations. They and duties minutes left certain after he the bath- same, no matter how mi- basically the cleaning wall, are room off the blood he went They the crime. are or horrendous the nor back to the bathroom found the vic- the the evidence of defen- same whether body laying tim’s nude legs down with her strong or guilt is weak. rule dant’s top of on the shoulders. De- very filing speedy indictments is clear. having fendant was sex with the are set It is the The time frames out. Johnny also testified when defendant was responsibility county attorney the about sex body, asked the act with the he employs assistants he or she to as- those she said was real loose and it felt different. procedures timely are sure followed in in, testimony After the came the trial pressures the fashion. We understand jury advised fact defendant busy office, prosecutor’s yet, pres- committed a sex act with the victim’s do not excuse to de- sures inattentiveness could not proof be considered as he was a case, any but particularly tails a case person disposition bad or has to commit a significant. this crime, solely but it was be considered attorney duty defense has no intent, premeditation the issue of and mal- attorney correcting county assist aforethought. ice The defendant contends attorney her defense or errors. A walks a the evidence improperly admitted be- fine line. He or must do that he or she all cause it was not relevant to crime she can within law to assure the best charged. which he was He further con- result for his or client. This in relevant, tends it should be still excluded seeking clude a dismissal because coun probative outweighed because its value is ty attorney has made a technical error. its prejudice. extremely This is an case. close 404(b) Rule reflects the view that evi- did its find trial court not abuse discre dence of other or wrongful crimes acts will tion. The trial court found defendant excluded unless the falls evidence within knowingly he misstated had received a recognized one of the exceptions to the copy of the in his trial information written Barrett, rule. See 21,1989. arraignment This filed find Emerson, (Iowa 1987); State v. binding is us if ing supported by sub apply- In Dickerson, stantial evidence. State v. ing primary rule 404 is task to deter- (Iowa 1981); State v. 528-29 challenged mine whether the evidence is Brandt, legitimate relevant and material issue arguments why Ruben makes several as to general propensity other than a to commit error, finding is in but there sub Barrett, wrongful N.W.2d acts. 401 to support finding. stantial evidence the Emerson, 375 N.W.2d at 187; 260; State v. affirm on We this issue. Gibb, 673, 1981); (Iowa 303 N.W.2d 682 McDaniel, 917, State v. 265 N.W.2d 921 II. (Iowa 1978). The defendant next contends the trial Questions relevancy admitting materiality erred in of and of evidence he had largely body. sex with Jennifer’s dead evidence rests within the sound dis- Defendant Watts, v. pretrial preclude a State made motion limine to cretion of the trial court. 1976). 586, (Iowa testimony. the The motion 589 was overruled. 244 N.W.2d We find overruling only complain- The court’s reasons for of the an abuse discretion the (1) ing motion were the party evidence related to can show the trial court’s action Cott, (2) See v. aforethought motive, malice and the evi- State not 283 was reasonable. 324, (Iowa 1979); v. Mor- Johnny’s dence could corroborate State testimo- N.W.2d 329 rison, and ny, (Iowa 1982). the was 323 State entitled show 256 N.W.2d entire argues transaction. the The State intercourse close 98 on the use of and a written instruction prove defendant’s malice

enough time to in most is a case where Jennifer. evidence. This ill toward will and prejudicial effect would circumstances the of recognize there are a series cases probably remain after the instruction. See prior has held relations where the Newman, 788, 792 326 N.W.2d State v. are and the defendant the victim between 1982). shocking (Iowa However the evi- of mind state relevant to defendant’s of when viewed the context dence was is committed. See State the murder when trial, do not find all the evidence this we (Iowa 542 Kellogg, 263 v. abused its discretion. the trial court 695, 697, Cole, 17 1978); Iowa v. 63 State Moelchen, (1883); State v. N.W. AFFIRMED. (1880). 5 N.W. 53 Iowa difficulty of applying rationale We have C.J., OXBERGER, concurs. of here. There is no evidence these cases HABHAB, J., separately concurs. between defendant any sexual conduct to her prerequisite murder. Jennifer as HABHAB, Judge (concurring). argues the is relevant. The evidence State majority opinion. I concur with contempt It contends Ruben demonstrated assignment of er- majority considered each by copulating and hatred Jennifer It found ror submitted defendant. body, of his and this was evidence her dead none of sufficient merit to rever- warrant twenty-five minutes earlier mindset when I agree sal. with that result. We need participated in her murder. he argument. dreadful, tragic shocking, This address was against humanity crime that is almost with- argu accept We do State’s parallel in this From the testi- out state. was admissible show ment the evidence witnesses, mony jury could find that surrounding the part of the circumstances Jennifer, picked went the defendant behind and circumstances which crime. Events couch, up proceeded to her off the may offense immediately surround an she held in she choke her. As was mid-air may incidentally though they shown even gasped kicked and for breath. She crime. show of another State commission floor, gained consciousness on the and with (Iowa Garren, v. mouth, coming attempted blood from her it is admissible when Such evidence prevent speak. Defendant used his foot to part the whole deed. inseparable is an yet rising. her She alive. The Nowlin, 244 N.W.2d State v. brother, Edward, put then (Iowa 1976). The State show contin around her neck while the defendant belt complete uous series of occurrences strangulation held her with his foot. story if other of the crime even offenses completed. light doing so. v. come to See State (Iowa 1988); Walters, 426 N.W.2d and his then took defendant brother Fryer, body put her clothes off and in the Drake, 1976); Later the sex with shower. defendant had behead- the dead Still later she was Her was abused and Edward. argues Defendant next the evi disposed ugly of in the most of manner. prejudicial probative. more dence is than comprehend years It is evidence more was seventeen difficult to prejudicial testimony age the murder occurred. The case than defendant was when adult court on June having observed intercourse with Jenni was transferred body, specifically and legs fer’s dead on his shoulders. The State was 1989. by permission Especially, testimony unequivocally granted when this was cou information of pled with statement about the sexual order to amend trial (who an adult had been argues encounter afterwards. The Edward Deases as earlier) prejudicial charged by so as effect minimized trial information No given to include Ruben as a defendant. verbal instruction after its admission filed, actually but amendment was arraign-

on June filed a written where, entering his

ment before written

plea guilty, of not he had stated

ceived a copy information charging him with murder first 707.2(1). degree in violation section

I facts rise believe these alone to the showing

level of a cause. More-

over, possible there is no the defen- way prejudiced,

dant could been have

State and the defense counsel elected to

proceed arraignment just though as formalizing grant- amendment the order filed. Like I would majority, affirm.

In re the MARRIAGE OF Deborah Ann George

HUNT and Clifford Hunt.

Upon the Petition of Deborah Hunt,

Ann Deborah n/k/a Lash, Appellee,

Ann Concerning George'

And Clifford

Hunt, Appellant.

No. 90-1825. Appeals

Court of of Iowa.

Aug.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Deases

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date Published: Jun 25, 1991

Citation: 476 N.W.2d 91

Docket Number: 90-414

Court Abbreviation: Iowa Ct. App.