Court Opinion

ID: 9877464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 16:05:13.768056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:18.020640
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1792
                           Filed September 27, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ROBERT DANIEL BUEL,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, James N. Daane,

Judge.

      Robert Daniel Buel appeals his conviction for going armed with intent.

AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas Bakke and Bridget A.

Chambers, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                         2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       On August 22, 2021, at about 9:30 a.m., Robert Daniel Buel called 911 to

report he had just killed his housemate, Jason Lafferty. When police officers

arrived, they found Lafferty’s body on the floor in a corridor off the garage. A

shotgun was found near the body. A handgun was found on the stairs leading up

to the house, and three spent casings for the handgun were recovered. Buel

admitted he had shot Lafferty but did so in self-defense. Buel went to the police

station to give his account of the events leading to the shooting.

       Buel told Officer Ryan Denney, the interviewer, that Lafferty and his wife

had been living in Buel’s home for about three years and Lafferty had never paid

rent. Lafferty had been very destructive in the house and espoused fantastical

stories in explanation.1 Buel relayed that Lafferty had become increasingly crazy

and threatening to Buel and violent to Lafferty’s wife—Buel knew something was

going to come to a head.

       Buel said they had all had some beers and methamphetamine the night

before and Lafferty came into his bedroom several times throughout the night,

threatened him with a machete, said he had a .40 caliber weapon, and repeatedly

thumped Buel in the head while haranguing him. In the morning, Buel heard

Lafferty banging and grinding something in the garage and wondered what further

destruction was happening. Buel took a loaded shotgun and a handgun down to

the garage to investigate. When asked why he armed himself, Buel said Lafferty

1 For example, Buel said Lafferty believed he had been almost killed in the house

a couple times and dug up the concrete floor on the lower level believing there was
a human body buried there.
                                          3

“gets so mad so fast, I needed protection.” Buel thought shotguns “are more

intimidating.” The two had an argument, and Buel pointed the shotgun at Lafferty.

Buel said Lafferty goaded him to shoot him, at which point Buel said it wasn’t worth

going to prison and put the shotgun on the floor. They continued to argue and

Lafferty picked up the shotgun, ejecting all the shells. Buel said Lafferty was in the

process of reloading the shotgun, said “This gun is mine now,” and pointed the gun

at Buel. Buel said it was “an intense moment of me getting killed.” Buel pulled a

.45 caliber handgun from his vest pocket and shot Lafferty three times.

       Buel told Officer Denney he bought the shotgun about a month prior. He

purchased the handgun the day before about 11:00 a.m. When asked why he had

taken two guns with him when he went to investigate the banging, Buel admitted

he was “pissed off” at the pounding, destruction, and disrespect, but he didn’t know

why he had done it—“it wasn’t a good idea,” but Buel didn’t know if “he had a .40

or not.” Buel said Lafferty didn’t know about his handgun. He denied setting up a

situation where he would be justified in shooting Lafferty.

       Buel was charged with second-degree murder and going armed with intent.

He asserted the shooting was in self-defense, i.e., that he was justified. A jury

found him guilty on both counts; Buel appeals only the conviction for going armed

with intent.

       The jury was instructed the State was required to show all of the following

beyond a reasonable doubt to prove going armed with intent:

             1. On or about the 22nd day of August 2021, in Woodbury
       County, Iowa, [Buel] was armed with a shotgun and/or a handgun.
             2. The shotgun and/or the handgun were dangerous
       weapons, as defined in Instruction No. 20.
                                          4

              3. [Buel] was armed with the specific intent to use the shotgun
       and/or the handgun against another person.
              4. While armed with the shotgun and/or the handgun [Buel]
       moved from one place to another.
              5. At that time, the defendant was not acting with justification.

       Buel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the third and fifth

elements, asserting he did not have the specific intent to use either weapon against

Lafferty without justification.

       “We review the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law.”

State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 54 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted).

       [W]e consider whether the finding of guilt is supported by substantial
       evidence in the record. Substantial evidence means a person may
       not be convicted based upon mere suspicion or conjecture.
       Substantial evidence exists when the evidence would convince a
       rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

       When supported by substantial evidence, the jury’s verdict “binds this

court.” State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021). “Evidence is not

insubstantial merely because we may draw different conclusions from it; the

ultimate question is whether it supports the finding actually made, not whether the

evidence would support a different finding.” Id. (citation omitted).

       Buel argues he carried the weapons with him merely to intimidate Lafferty.

Citing State v. Slayton, 417 N.W.2d 432 (Iowa 1987), Buel asserts his intent to use

is not satisfied by a mere showing of intent to intimidate.

       In Slayton, the court opined:

               Going armed with intent under Iowa Code section 708.8 is a
       class “D” felony. Therefore, we could reasonably expect that the
       legislature intended to require a greater quantity or degree of
       misconduct for a conviction under this crime than would be involved
       in related crimes classified as misdemeanors. Intentionally pointing
                                         5

       a firearm toward another or displaying any dangerous weapon in a
       threatening manner toward another is an assault. Iowa Code
       § 708.1(3). Absent additional proof, this assault is punishable as a
       simple misdemeanor. Iowa Code § 708.2(3). This same act of
       assault, committed without an intent to inflict a serious injury but
       which causes a bodily injury or disturbing mental illness, is a serious
       misdemeanor. Iowa Code § 708.2(2). Again the same act of assault,
       punishable as a simple misdemeanor, committed with intent to inflict
       a serious injury on another rises to an aggravated misdemeanor.
       Iowa Code § 708.2(1).

417 N.W.2d at 434. The court determined, “We agree with defendant’s contention

that the ‘intent to use’ element requires proof of an intent to shoot another person

when a firearm is involved.” Id.

       But the court went on to determine the evidence was sufficient to uphold

Slayton’s conviction:

              An affidavit made by defendant’s mother shortly after the
       incident was introduced into evidence at trial. In that affidavit she
       states that the defendant came into their bedroom, turned on the light
       and pointed a shotgun at them. She further states that she tried
       pushing the shotgun out of her face and then ran outside. Defendant
       then came after her and put a shell in the gun. In response to
       defendant’s actions, Mrs. Slayton states that her husband thought
       defendant was going to shoot her and so he struck defendant in the
       head with a club. The defendant testified that he took the gun to his
       parents’ bedroom for self-defense or to deter his father from acting.
       Defendant also admits he took a shotgun shell with him. A
       reasonable jury could infer from this evidence that defendant
       intended to use the shotgun against his parents by shooting them.

Id. at 435.

       Here, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State,

including all ‘legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and

reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’” Jones, 967 N.W.2d at 339

(citation omitted). The evidence shows Buel and Lafferty were having an argument

on August 22. Buel was upset because Lafferty was damaging his house and was
                                           6

disrespectful. Buel had recently bought a shotgun and a handgun to prepare for a

violent confrontation with Lafferty, and Buel took the loaded handgun and shotgun

to the basement to confront him.

       During a recorded visit with his sister while Buel was in jail on November 9,

Buel said Lafferty thought he was entitled to stuff but he wasn’t entitled to anything

“except a bullet.” When his sister said Buel was just defending himself, Buel said

“I put myself in that position. When I couldn’t deal with his bullshit no longer, I took

two guns down there and I fucking shot him.” The jury could reasonably infer from

Buel’s actions and statements that he “was armed with the specific intent to use

the shotgun and/or the handgun against another person.”

       As for whether Buel was justified in do so, he does not challenge the jury

instruction on justification.2 After pointing the shotgun at Lafferty, Buel first decided

2 The instruction provided:

              If any of the following is true, the defendant’s use of force was
       not justified:
              1. The defendant did not have a reasonable belief that it was
       necessary to use force to prevent an injury or loss.
              2. The defendant used unreasonable force under the
       circumstances.
              3. The defendant initially provoked the use of force against
       himself, intending to use the provocation as an excuse to injure
       Jason Lafferty.
              4. The defendant initially provoked the use of force against
       himself by his unlawful acts unless:
                      a. Jason Lafferty used force grossly disproportionate to
       the defendant’s provocation and it was so great the defendant
       reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or
       serious injury.
                      b. The defendant withdrew from physical contact with
       Jason Lafferty and clearly indicated to Jason Lafferty that he desired
       to terminate the conflict but Jason Lafferty continued or resumed the
       use of force.
                                         7

not to use the weapon. But then Lafferty picked up the shotgun and pointed it and

told Buel the shotgun was now his. Buel responded by taking out his handgun,

which Lafferty did not know he had, and shooting Lafferty in the head and chest,

killing him. Because there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion

the shooting was not justified, we affirm.

       AFFIRMED.

              5. The defendant was engaged in an illegal activity in the
       place where he used force. The illegal activity engaged in by the
       defendant or the person the defendant helped is either:
                     a. Going Armed with Intent as defined in [another
       instruction].
                     b. Assault on Jason Lafferty as defined in [another
       instruction].