Opinion ID: 206205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Second State Trial

Text: On remand, Garrison moved to dismiss the trial information, arguing the prosecutor intentionally engaged in conduct . . . designed to force Garrison to move for a mistrial by gaining admission of Martin's Oxycontin testimony. The trial court denied Garrison's motion, concluding the prosecutor's mistake was unintentional and not intended to force a mistrial. The court reasoned [o]nce it became apparent [Garrison] and Martin did not have a prior relationship, the State dropped the issue[,] did not mention it during its closing argument[,] and did not object when Garrison requested a limiting instruction. Garrison's second trial commenced in October 2006. The parties agreed to avoid references to the first trial. During direct examination, Medical Examiner Marvin Van Haaften testified about his examination of the victims' bodies and his estimation of the victims' times of death. Garrison attempted to impeach Van Haaften's testimony by pointing out inconsistencies in the times underlying Van Haaften's estimations. In an apparent effort to rehabilitate Van Haaften's testimony, the prosecutor asked, This wasn't the first time you came into court today to determine a time of death in this case, is that correct? Garrison immediately objected and demanded a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The trial court found the question dangerously close to a reference to a first trial, but denied Garrison's motion. The court did, however, strike the question, sanction the prosecutor by barring him from asking any further questions of Van Haaften, and give the jury a cautionary instruction to completely disregard the question. The jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced Garrison to two consecutive life sentences without parole. Garrison again appealed. As relevant here, Garrison challenged (1) the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, (2) denial of his motion for a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct, and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the convictions. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. State v. Garrison ( Garrison II ), No. 06-1983, 2008 WL 2902024, at  (Iowa Ct.App. July 30, 2008) (unpub. table disp.). Garrison sought further review with the Iowa Supreme Court, which denied Garrison's application.