Court Opinion

ID: 9377672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 16:05:08.095693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.826732
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-0190
                               Filed March 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JERIN DOUGLAS MOOTZ,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark D. Cleve, Judge.

      A defendant appeals his conviction for neglect or abandonment of a

dependent person. AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
                                         2

GREER, Judge.

       A jury found Jerin Mootz guilty of neglecting or abandoning his minor son,

J.M., on October 20, 2020. Over Mootz’s objection, the State presented evidence

at trial about a 2019 welfare check where J.M. told law enforcement he had been

kicked out of his father’s home. Mootz now appeals the district court’s admission

of this prior bad act evidence, arguing it was propensity evidence and prejudicial

to him. The State contends the evidence showed Mootz’s knowledge that his act

exposed his child to a known danger and his reckless disregard of that danger and

that it was needed to confront Mootz’s claim it was all a mistake. Because we find

no abuse of the district court’s discretion in allowing the presentation of evidence

about the 2019 event, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

       On a dreary October afternoon, J.M.—then eleven years old—was found

alone outside a Davenport grocery store with two large dogs not wearing leashes

or collars. When a store clerk went outside to check on the child, he explained he

had been kicked out of his father’s home because his father, Mootz, was angry the

dogs were fighting. The clerk called the police, and Officer Joshua Wehde arrived

at the store. He found J.M. wet from the rain and shivering and believed the child

had been out wandering for about forty-five minutes. The dogs were fighting with

one another and one was visibly injured, and J.M. was struggling to keep them

apart. Officer Wehde was informed that law enforcement had been at Mootz’s

home that morning to do a welfare check; but, when officers spoke with J.M., he

said he was not scared and they allowed him to remain in the home. Because of

the new turn of events, Officer Wehde decided he could not return the child to
                                          3

Mootz’s home. An emergency court order placed J.M. in temporary foster care,

and a temporary removal hearing was scheduled.1 The Iowa Department of

Human Services child protection worker, Kevin Schmidt, went to Mootz’s home a

few days later to serve the temporary removal paperwork—Mootz looked at

Schmidt through the curtain but would not engage. On October 23, Schmidt left

the paperwork and his business card under the doormat. Mootz did not attempt to

contact Schmidt between that date and the subsequent removal hearing on

October 27.

       Mootz was charged with neglect or abandonment of a dependent person,

as a habitual offender, in violation of Iowa Code sections 726.3, 902.8, and 902.9

(2020). Specifically, section 726.3 reads in part:

              A person who is the father, mother, or some other person
       having custody of a child, or of any other person who by reason of
       mental or physical disability is not able to care for the person’s self,
       who knowingly or recklessly exposes such person to a hazard or
       danger against which such person cannot reasonably be expected
       to protect such person’s self or who deserts or abandons such
       person, knowing or having reason to believe that the person will be
       exposed to such hazard or danger, commits a class “C” felony.

       As to this charge, the State was required to prove (1) Mootz was the father

of J.M., (2) J.M. was under the age of fourteen, (3) Mootz “knowingly or recklessly

exposed [J.M.] to a hazard or danger against which [J.M.] could not reasonably be

expected to protect himself” or Mootz “deserted or abandoned [J.M.] knowing or

having reason to believe that [J.M.] would be exposed to a hazard or danger.” So,

to address elements of the charge, the State intended to present details about a

1 J.M.’s mother was eventually contacted, but at that point the child could not be
placed in her home because she lived across state lines in Illinois.
                                          4

2019 incident involving similar details to those resulting in the charges. At that

time, Deputy Sheriff Jack Asquini responded to a welfare check around eight

o’clock at night and found J.M. and his sister standing outside; they reported their

father had kicked them out of their home. When Mootz finally answered Deputy

Asquini’s knock at his door, Mootz told him to “keep the kids.” After Deputy Asquini

informed Mootz he was neglecting the children, Mootz stepped away from the door

and refused any further discussion. To block presentation of this evidence, Mootz

moved in limine to prohibit the State from discussing it; the district court determined

it would reserve ruling on the motion to see how the evidence developed in the

trial. When it came time in the State’s case to present the evidence, the district

court denied Mootz’s motion in limine and allowed the testimony about the 2019

incident.

       After the State’s case-in-chief, Mootz moved for a judgment of acquittal,

arguing the State failed to prove he (1) knowingly or recklessly exposed J.M. to

danger or (2) deserted or abandoned him. The district court denied the motion.

Mootz went on to testify, explaining that J.M. had a key to the house, he saw J.M.

leave the house with the dogs on October 20 but thought he was just out playing

with his friends, and it was not unusual for his son to stay out playing for hours at

a time. Mootz explained that while J.M. left the house after they had a conversation

suggesting J.M. live with his mother, Mootz argued that J.M. must have mistakenly

believed he was “kicked out” and had to leave immediately. Then as for his side

of the 2019 event, Mootz explained that the children were bothering him when he

returned from a sixteen-hour work day, so he sent them outside to play. In his

closing, he argued not only that he did not intend to kick J.M. out of the home, but
                                            5

he did not know that J.M. was in danger. He renewed his motion for judgment of

acquittal at the close of his evidence, and it was again denied. The jury found

Mootz guilty. He now appeals the district court’s decision to admit evidence of the

2019 incident.

II. Analysis.

       We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thoren,

970 N.W.2d 611, 620 (Iowa 2022). “A district court abuses its discretion when it

bases its decisions on grounds or reasons clearly untenable or to an extent that is

clearly unreasonable . . . [or] if it bases its conclusions on an erroneous application

of the law.” Id. (alterations in original) (citation omitted).

       Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b)(1) (2020)2 states that “[e]vidence of a crime,

wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show

that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.”

But, it “may be admissible for another purpose such as proving motive, opportunity,

intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of a mistake, or lack of

accident.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.404(b)(2). The rule “seeks to exclude evidence that

serves no purpose except to show the defendant is a bad person, from which the

jury is likely to infer he or she committed the crime in question.” State v. Rodriquez,

636 N.W.2d 234, 239 (Iowa 2001).

2 As of January 1, 2023, this rule has been updated. Because we are reviewing a
trial held in November 2021, before the change took effect, we use the previous
version. See Iowa Supreme Ct. Supervisory Order, In re Adopting Amendments
to the Iowa Rules of Evidence in Chapter 5 of the Iowa Court Rules (Sept. 14,
2022),      available at    https://www.iowacourts.gov/collections/754/files/1623/
embedDocument/.
                                          6

       District courts must ensure prior acts evidence passes three hurdles to be

admissible at trial. Thoren, 970 N.W.2d at 626. First, the evidence must be

“relevant to a legitimate, disputed factual issue.” Id. (citing State v. Putman, 848

N.W.2d 1, 9 (Iowa 2014)). Then, “the evidence must provide ‘clear proof’ that the

defendant engaged in the act.” Id. (citing Putman, 848 N.W.2d at 9). Lastly, the

evidence’s probative value must not be “substantially outweighed by the danger of

unfair prejudice to the defendant.” Id. (citing State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19, 25

(Iowa 2004)); see also Iowa R. Evid. 5.403 (“The court may exclude relevant

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or

more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury,

undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”).

       “To satisfy the first element, the party introducing the evidence must

‘articulate a tenable noncharacter theory of logical relevance’ between that

evidence and a legitimate, disputed factual issue.” Thoren, 970 N.W.2d at 626

(citation omitted). Even if the evidence can fit into one of the acceptable purposes

listed in rule 5.404(b)(2), “its use should be limited to the specific purpose to which

it is relevant.” Id. at 627. In this case, the reason articulated by the State for the

use of the evidence was to show Mootz’s knowledge and absence of mistake in

contrast to his testimony that the child was only out playing or had made it to his

mother. See State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565, 569-70 (Iowa 2008) (concluding

the district court should have allowed evidence of a previous no contact order to

prove knowledge of the impact of a course of conduct). Following that same

reasoning, the district court found evidence of the 2019 incident relevant to

“knowledge, and also the issue of lack of mistake or accident.” It is true that “the
                                          7

elements of a charged offense do not automatically become legitimate, disputed

factual issues in a case,” and elements that are “merely a formal issue derived

from the elements of the offense” rather than controverted issues struggle to

support prior acts evidence. Thoren, 970 N.W.2d at 629, 630 (citation omitted).

But, when the issue is actually disputed, it can provide the leverage necessary for

prior acts evidence to clear the first hurdle. In this case, Mootz’s knowledge was

directly in dispute, as underlined by his motion for judgment of acquittal and closing

argument, which both revolved around his knowledge. But we focus on the use of

the 2019 event to rebut Mootz’s theme over J.M.’s mistaken understanding of their

conversation. Mootz argued he did not kick J.M. out of the home, but instead J.M.

misunderstood the conversation they were having before he left.                “[R]ule

5.404(b)(2)’s reference to mistake or accident is not strictly limited to a mistake or

accident by the defendant.” Id. at 633. And the evidence Mootz challenges can

also be relevant to rebut his theory that J.M. was mistaken in thinking he had been

kicked out of the home. See id. (“In some circumstances mistake can also arise

in the context of the victim’s mistake when the defendant presents specific

evidence to support a theory that the victim was mistaken about what

happened . . . . In this context, evidence of the defendant’s prior actions is not

relevant to a mistake that goes [to] the defendant’s intent but is relevant to rebut a

specific-defense theory of mistake by the victim.”). Here, the judge could consider

that the details of the 2019 event were relevant to show J.M. had been thrown out

before and so J.M.’s understanding of the more recent conversation was not a

mistake. So, we find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in finding the
                                        8

evidence was probative to a legitimate disputed element of the crime and was

more than mere character evidence.

      As to the second requirement, Mootz argues there was not clear proof

supporting Deputy Asquini’s explanation of the 2019 incident because Deputy

Asquini did not see the interaction between Mootz and the children that led to them

being outside. “In assessing whether clear proof of prior misconduct exists, the

prior act need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and corroboration is

unnecessary. . . . Testimony of credible witnesses can satisfy the clear-proof

requirement.” Putman, 848 N.W.2d at 9. “There simply needs to be sufficient

proof to prevent the jury from engaging in speculation or drawing inferences based

on mere suspicion.” Id. (citation omitted). Although Deputy Asquini did not see

the 2019 conversation between J.M. and Mootz, he could testify about his

discussion with Mootz that Mootz was neglecting the children and Mootz’s

comment to the deputy to “keep the kids.” Mootz himself did not dispute that he

sent the children out of the home or that the deputy had visited. We find no abuse

of discretion in the district court’s decision to find Deputy Asquini credible and

determine there was clear proof to support the evidence.

      Finally, Mootz argues the evidence’s probative value was substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.3 All evidence will bring with it some

prejudice to the party it is being offered against. State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d

3 Through a cautionary jury instruction, the district court explained the limited
purpose for the evidence of Mootz’s “other acts”: “If you find other acts occurred
then and only then may such other acts be considered for the purpose of
establishing knowledge or absence of mistake.” See Putman, 848 N.W.2d at 15
(noting a limiting instruction “is an antidote for the danger of prejudice”).
                                           9

180, 202 (Iowa 2013). “Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it[] ‘[a]ppeals to the jury’s

sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, provokes its instinct to punish, or triggers

other mainsprings of human action that may cause the jury to base its decision on

something other than the established propositions in the case.’” State v. White,

668 N.W.2d 850, 854 (Iowa 2003) (second alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Relevant considerations include:

       the need for the evidence in light of the issues and the other evidence
       available to the prosecution, whether there is clear proof the
       defendant committed the prior bad acts, the strength or weakness of
       the evidence on the relevant issue, and the degree to which the fact
       finder will be prompted to decide the case on an improper basis.

Putman, 848 N.W.2d at 9–10 (citation omitted). “Weighing probative value against

prejudicial effect ‘is not an exact science,’ so ‘we give a great deal of leeway to the

trial judge who must make this judgment call.’” Id. at 9 (citation omitted). And, “[i]f

the balance between the evidence’s probative value and prejudicial effect is

relatively close, the evidence should be admitted.” State v. Buelow, 951 N.W.2d

879, 889 (Iowa 2020).

       In sum, it was not unreasonable for the district court to find the evidence of

the 2019 incident was relevant to the legitimate, disputed issue of J.M.’s mistaken

understanding over their conversation to leave the home. And there is clear proof

the incident in 2019 occurred. Finally, the probative value of this evidence is not

substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice.

       After evaluating all three barriers to the admission of the bad acts evidence

over the 2019 incident, we find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in allowing

its presentation to the jury.
                                       10

III. Conclusion.

      Finding no abuse of the district court’s discretion in admitting evidence of

the 2019 welfare check, we affirm.

      AFFIRMED.