Opinion ID: 1810115
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Issues Involving the Validity of the Charges or Procedural Matters Arising During the Trial.

Text: A. Motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant urges that he was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence of speed offered by the State was unreliable, and absent such evidence there was no basis to conclude that he was driving in a reckless manner. As noted in our prior discussion, we agree that absent evidence of grossly excessive speed there was no basis to conclude that defendant was driving in a reckless manner with a willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. On the issue of speed, we conclude that the reliability of Gerdom's speed estimates was a question for the jury because the jury was not bound to credit the testimony of defendant's expert witnesses that the cause of the cruise control cable being locked into place was the collision with the buggy. Factual disputes concerning the foundational facts for the opinions of expert witnesses are matters for the jury to decide. Preferred Mktg. Assocs. Co. v. Hawkeye Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 452 N.W.2d 389, 393 (Iowa 1990); see also State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 784 (Iowa 1999). If the jury believed officer Gerdom's estimates of the speed of defendant's vehicle, we believe that that factor coupled with the other elements involved in the collision would support a finding of willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others. B. Noninclusive-title challenge to Iowa Code section 707.6A. Defendant lodged a noninclusive-title challenge to section 707.6A based on the provisions of article III, section 29 of the Iowa Constitution. That constitutional provision requires that the subject of an act must be expressed in the title. The provisions of section 707.6A pertaining to death resulting from operating while intoxicated are adequately described in the title of the bill. However, there is no mention in the title of the provisions pertaining to death caused by reckless operation of a motor vehicle. We conclude that defendant's constitutional challenge to the statute is untimely because the act in question was codified prior to the time that it was challenged in defendant's criminal trial. Once a bill is codified, any constitutional defect relating to either the title requirement or the single-subject requirement of article III, section 29 is cured. State v. Mabry, 460 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Iowa 1990). In the present case, the statute was enacted in the spring of 1997 and became effective on July 1, 1997. The Code containing the amendment was released by the Code Editor on January 8, 1998. That was the date beyond which no constitutional challenge based on a noninclusive title could be lodged. See Iowa Dep't of Transp. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 586 N.W.2d 374, 377 (Iowa 1998). Defendant did not present the court with a challenge to the statute until April 17, 1998. Defendant contends that he did not have standing to challenge the act until the criminal charges were brought against him. He argues that the constitutional challenge that he lodged to the statute on April 17, 1998, should relate back either to the date of the victims' death and injury or the date on which criminal charges were filed (January 5, 1998). We are convinced that the language in Mabry, 460 N.W.2d at 475, requires that a constitutional challenge of this nature must actually be presented to the court prior to codification. This was also recognized in State v. Taylor, 557 N.W.2d 523, 526 (Iowa 1996). We recognize that this limitation means that the window of opportunity for challenging a statute on this ground is entirely fortuitous because persons are not motivated to challenge a statute until they are placed in a position in which the statute adversely affects them. Nevertheless, this is an inescapable conclusion of the Mabry doctrine. C. Equal protection. Defendant asserts that section 707.6A violates equal protection of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution because it discriminates between perpetrators of different acts of homicide embraced within the statute. The Colorado Court of Appeals was asked to address substantially the same question in People v. Loeser, 981 P.2d 197 (Colo.Ct.App.1999). The Colorado court concluded that disparate penalties for homicide by vehicle caused by drunken driving and homicide by vehicle caused by reckless driving do not violate equal protection because a defendant in one situation is not similarly situated with a defendant in the other situation. Loeser, 981 P.2d at 198. The holding of the Colorado court is generally consistent with the views we expressed in State v. Ramirez, 597 N.W.2d 795, 798 (Iowa 1999) (generally if elements differ penalties may differ without violating equal protection). We find no merit in defendant's equal protection challenge. D. Due process. Defendant asserts that section 707.6A denied him due process of law because the statute does not require a specific criminal intent as an element of guilt. We reject this contention because it is based on an invalid assumption. Defendant was convicted of reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The statutory provisions that establish the crime specify driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property. Iowa Code § 707.6A(2)(a) (emphasis added). That definition is incorporated by reference in the offense involving serious injury by reckless operation. Iowa Code § 707.6A(4). The requirement of a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others establishes a mens rea, element that is essential to a finding of guilt. Defendant also challenges the statute on due process grounds because it provides an inadequate definition of causation. We also reject that contention. With respect to the homicide-by-vehicle charge involving reckless operation, the statute expressly requires the State to prove that the defendant unintentionally causes the death of another by any of the following means: . . . . a. Driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.... Iowa Code § 707.6A(2)(a) (emphasis added). These provisions are incorporated by reference in the statute creating the offense involving serious injury by reckless operation of a motor vehicle. Iowa Code § 707.6A(4). A cause-in-fact requirement is thus clearly spelled out as an element of these offenses. E. Denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence and challenge to the manner in which the blood sample was handled. Defendant asserts error in the manner in which the implied-consent law was implemented and in the manner in which the blood sample was handled. In Division I of this opinion, we determined that in deciding what the jury in the present case would have done absent tainted evidence, we could not consider any evidence bearing on defendant's intoxication, which the same jury rejected in acquitting him of the charge of vehicular homicide while intoxicated. We now further hold that, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the evidentiary relevance consequences that flow from the application of that doctrine, another jury on retrial should be precluded from considering any such evidence in its determination of the charge of vehicular homicide by reckless driving. [1] This renders it unnecessary to consider defendant's challenges to this evidence during his first trial. F. Excluding comment on the serious penalties imposed for conviction of the offenses charged. Defendant asserts that the district court erred in not allowing him to inform the jury of the serious penalties that befall a person who is convicted of the charges against him. The district court concluded that this knowledge was not relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence, which was the only issue for the jury's consideration. We agree. The court was well within its discretion to keep such information from the jury. G. Requiring defendant to submit a witness list prior to voir dire. Defendant contends that the district court erred in requiring him to submit a list of his witnesses to the prosecution for aid in voir dire. We agree that the court erred in imposing this requirement. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 13 governs the State's right to discovery in a criminal case, and nothing therein contained provides a basis for the State to demand production of a list of defendant's witnesses. H. Refusal to permit a view of the car and view of the crime scene. Defendant contends that the district court abused its discretion in not permitting the jury to view the car or the crime scene. We disagree. Whether or not to accede to defendant's request was a matter falling within the broad discretion of the district court. See State v. Haines, 259 N.W.2d 806, 811 (Iowa 1977). I. Whether restitution requirement of section 910.3B violates double jeopardy protections or constitutes an excessive fine. The arguments that defendant has made challenging Iowa Code section 910.3B on grounds of double jeopardy and an excessive fine have been completely answered in prior decisions of this court. See State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541, 552-53 (Iowa 2000); State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Iowa 2000). Those decisions require that we reject these contentions. J. Personal bias of the judge. As a final matter, we consider defendant's contention that the judge who presided at trial erred by not recusing herself at defendant's request. That request came on the third day of the trial and was based on information that defendant had received indicating that the judge's father had been killed in a collision with an intoxicated driver. In response to defendant's recusal motion, the judge acknowledged that her father had been killed in an automobile collision fourteen years prior to the trial. The driver of the other vehicle, who was also killed, had tested at more than .20 for blood alcohol concentration. The judge concluded that this circumstance would not influence her and that because she was not the trier of fact she deemed recusal to be unnecessary. At the outset we note that our review of the record does not reveal any statements or actions on the part of the trial judge that in any way indicate the presence of bias toward this defendant. Nevertheless, recusal of a judge is required if the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3D(1). In interpreting Canon 3D, we have held that the considerations involved on a motion to recuse include assurances of objectivity, understanding of the concepts of the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt, and recognition that the present defendant was not the one involved in the prior event. In addition, the length of time since the victimization, the similarity of the incidents, and the lack of acquaintance with the present victim are to be considered. State v. Mann, 512 N.W.2d 528, 533 (Iowa 1994). We have recognized the necessarily imprecise nature of these considerations. Id. at 532. Disqualification is committed to the sound discretion of the judge. State v. Smith, 242 N.W.2d 320, 323-24 (Iowa 1976). The burden of showing error for failure to recuse is on the party seeking recusal. Mann, 512 N.W.2d at 532; Smith, 242 N.W.2d at 324. Based on the circumstances presented, we are unable to conclude that an abuse of discretion occurred in the present case. We have considered all arguments presented and conclude that for reasons discussed in Division I of this opinion the judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for a new trial. The retrial shall be limited to the charges against defendant under Iowa Code section 707.6A(2)(a) and Iowa Code section 707.6A(4). REVERSED AND REMANDED. SNELL, S.J. [] participates in lieu of STREIT, J., who takes no part.