Opinion ID: 1616730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim on Appeal.

Text: Graves asserts that alleged misconduct by the county attorney deprived him of a fair trial. See DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2002) (stating prosecutorial misconduct that denies the defendant a fair trial is a violation of due process); U.S. Const. amend. 14. He points to certain questions asked by the county attorney in cross-examining Graves and to statements made by the county attorney in closing argument as the basis for his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. The following colloquy occurred during the county attorney's cross-examination of Graves with respect to the conversation between Graves and Steil at the police station: Q. Then later Officer Steil came back to the jail and advised you of your Miranda rights? A. Yes. .... Q. You also told him at that time that you and [Quick] had found the marijuana plant near Oskaloosa? A. No. Q. Officer Steil made that up? A. I suppose. Q. You also told him you and Mr. [Quick] tied the stalks together? A. No, I didn't. Q. Officer Steil made that up? A. I suppose so. Q. That the marijuana had been put in the basement to dry. Didn't you tell Officer Steil that? A. No. Q. He made that up? A. He told me that's where he found it out. [Quick] told me it was in the basement so I knew that, too. (Emphasis added.) Although defense counsel did not object to this questioning, the defendant now claims it was improper for the State to force him to comment on the veracity of another witness. The defendant also complains on appeal of the following remarks made by the county attorney in the rebuttal portion of his closing argument: [Defense counsel] talks about the fact Mr. Graves' confession statements were not videotaped, then we have got to ignore them.... I wish it was videotaped, we wouldn't have the problem of Mr. Graves coming into Court and lying like he did. It was a very brief conversation done spur of the moment. He was not a focus at the time the officer went to jail only relying on the statements of [Quick]. [1] .... ... The defendant expects you to believe that he didn't live there, but that's where he leaves cash lay. Well, I want you to know I don't carry cash but I don't leave it at other people's house, especially if it's a flop house, as Mr. Anderson [defense counsel] would tell you, where people come in and out. You are not going to leave $85 in cash laying there. It doesn't matter what Mr. Anderson told you. I want you to think about this. Why did Defendant deem it necessary to lie to you about his residence? The answer is obvious.... .... ... He did live in the house, and he's telling you he's responsible because he's lying to you about not living in the house .... .... Look at the evidence, folks. When you look at it and say to yourself why does this young man sit there and lie to us the way he did. The reason he did that is because he's guilty and he knows it, and after you have looked at the evidence, you know it, too. It can't be just a coincidence that all of these things fell into place, that [Quick] said he lived there, he told Steil he lived there, he told the jailer he lived there. Three months later he said, I didn't live there. I lived somewhere else. He has cash at his residence but denies it's his. All of these things jump out at you loud and clear. We are not looking at anything other than that evidence of showing who is lying in this case. He said he didn't. One of the instructions tells you to determine who is telling the truth. You look at the stake the person has in the proceedings.... Mr. Graves' reason for lying is to save himself from conviction. He was not telling the truth on that day.... (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel made no objection to the prosecutor's closing argument. Graves now asserts the county attorney improperly belittled him and inappropriately expressed or implied the prosecutor's personal opinion on the credibility of the witnesses and the defendant's guilt. Because objection was not made at trial, Graves' claim of prosecutorial misconduct is raised on appeal in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984) (holding Sixth Amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial). Therefore, we first briefly review the components of an ineffective-assistance claim, then discuss the law governing a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and finally outline the framework for our consideration of these claims.