Opinion ID: 2208613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Modified Approach.

Text: Against this backdrop we turn to the record in this case. Jeffries was charged with one count of insurrection, seven counts of second-degree kidnapping, two counts of assault while participating in a felony, one count of going armed with intent, and three counts of assault with intent to inflict a serious injury. See Iowa Code §§ 718.1; 710.1, 710.3; 708.3; 708.8; 708.1; 708.2(1). At trial Jeffries requested that the district court submit jury instructions on willful disturbance and harassment of public officers and employees as lesser-included offenses of insurrection. See Iowa Code §§ 718.3, 718.4. The district court refused to do so. Jeffries was then found guilty of insurrection, second-degree kidnapping, and assault while participating in a felony. The court of appeals, applying the legal and factual tests, determined that willful disturbance and harassment of public officers and employees were lesser-included offenses of insurrection. On further review, the State argues that willful disturbance fails the legal as well as the factual test. While assuming, for purposes of argument, that the harassment offense meets the legal test, the State maintains that it fails the factual test. Under our newly adopted approach to lesser-included offenses, we first determine whether willful disturbance and harassment meet the legal test. If so, we next determine whether the defendant stipulated to an elevating element of insurrection, the offense charged. In this instance we need only concern ourselves with whether the legal test is met because there was no stipulation by the defendant. Thus, under our modified approach, if we determine that willful disturbance and harassment meet the legal test, the factual test is met as a matter of law. The elements of insurrection are: 1. Three or more persons 2. Acting in concert 3. Using physical violence against persons or property 4(a) With the purpose of interfering with, disrupting, or destroying the government of the state or any subdivision thereof, or 4(b) With the purpose of preventing any executive, legislative, or judicial officer or body from performing its lawful function. Iowa Code § 718.1. Because the State charged both alternatives 4(a) and 4(b), we consider both in applying the legal test. See State v. Sangster, 299 N.W.2d 661, 663 (Iowa 1980) (When the statute defines an offense alternatively, the relevant definition is the one for the offense involved in the particular prosecution.). The elements of willful disturbance are: 1. Any person 2. Who willfully disturbs 3. Any deliberative body or agency of the state or subdivision thereof, 4(a) With the purpose of disrupting the functioning of such body or agency by tumultuous behavior, or 4(b) With the purpose of coercing by force any official conduct or proceeding. Iowa Code § 718.3. As we noted earlier, under the legal test the lesser offense is necessarily included in the greater offense if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. State v. Redmon, 244 N.W.2d 792, 801 (Iowa 1976). If the lesser offense contains an element not required for the greater offense, the lesser cannot be included in the greater. This is because it would be possible in that situation to commit the greater without also having committed the lesser. Sangster, 299 N.W.2d at 663. In using this test, we look to the statutory elements rather than to the charge or the evidence. Redmon, 244 N.W.2d at 801. Here, willful disturbance requires an actual disturbance of a deliberative state body, whereas insurrection, the offense charged, requires only physical violence against persons or property with the purpose of disrupting such a body. Thus, the legal test is not met because insurrection can be committed without committing willful disturbance. For example, assume that A intends to disrupt a state agency hearing by shooting the participants. Before A can get to the hearing room he is accosted by several security guards who know of his plan. The security guards prevent A's disruption of the hearing, but not before A inflicts serious injuries on one of the guards. The hearing concludes before the participants discover what has transpired. Thus, violence against a person occurred without any disturbance of the hearing. We reach an opposite result in applying the legal test to insurrection and harassment. The elements of harassment are: 1. Any person 2. Who willfully prevents or attempts to prevent 3. Any public officer or employee 4. From performing the officer's or employee's duty. Iowa Code § 718.4. With the exception of the alternative who willfully prevents, in element two, all four of the elements are common to the two offenses. Because we are dealing with a lesser offense involving alternatives, an additional rule under the legal test comes into play. If the lesser offense is defined alternatively, the offense is included if any of the alternatives are included. Sangster, 299 N.W.2d at 664. Because an offense is necessarily included in another if it is a component part of the greater, an offense is necessarily included if one of its statutory definitions makes it a component part of a greater offense. Id. When so included, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. Id. Applying this rule to the alternative who willfully ... attempts to prevent, we conclude the legal test is met. This alternative is the same as alternative 4(b), with the purpose of preventing, of insurrection, the greater offense. The State did not restrict itself to the who willfully prevents  alternative of harassment. Thus, considering the who willfully... attempts alternative of harassment, it is not possible to commit insurrection without also committing harassment. Under these circumstances, Jeffries was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction on harassment. We conclude the district court correctly refused Jeffries' request for a lesser-included offense instruction on willful disturbance but erred in denying a similar request as to harassment.