Court Opinion

ID: 9781056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:06:07.675823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:45.224085
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                 No. 22-1055
                            Filed August 30, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RICHARD GEORGE FLECK JR.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Amy M. Moore, Judge.

      Richard George Fleck Jr. appeals his conviction for murder in the first

degree. AFFIRMED.

      Shawn Smith of The Smith Law Firm, PC, Ames, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

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

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

        Richard George Fleck Jr. appeals his conviction for murder in the first

degree. He contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion

for mistrial. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

conviction, contending the State failed to meet its burden on one of the five

required elements. Because the district court acted within its discretion in ruling

on a mistrial and substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm Fleck’s

conviction.

   I.      Background Facts and Proceedings.

        The Ames Police Department discovered the body of Ranea Bell in the

apartment she shared with Fleck. Authorities immediately identified Fleck as a

prime suspect and released his photograph to the public, asking for anyone with

information to come forward. Laura Zazueta responded to this request and gave

a statement. Fleck was then interviewed by police.

        During his interview, Fleck told police he was romantically involved with both

Bell and Zazueta. He claimed that after confessing to Bell about his relationship

with Zazueta, Bell immediately became violent, striking him with a vodka bottle and

punching him. Fleck alleged he defended himself but “blacked out” without any

memory of the incident. Afterward, he asked Zazueta to pick him up so the two

could return to her place in Des Moines. Zazueta testified Fleck was covered in

blood and told her his roommates were engaged in a physical fight to explain his

appearance. Once in Des Moines, Fleck showered before asking Zazueta to drive

him back to the apartment to determine whether police had been called. Fleck

went inside alone before returning to Des Moines with Zazueta.
                                          3

        Following investigation, police determined Bell died from blunt force trauma.

The State charged Fleck with first-degree murder, possession of a firearm as a

felon, trafficking in stolen weapons, and third-degree theft.

        During voir dire, three prospective jurors were questioned about their

connection to key witnesses, which elicited statements at issue here. One juror

recounted his familiarity with one of the police officers serving as a witness and

admitted his inability to remain neutral. Another described a “close” friendship with

a witness and expressed concerns about treating her testimony impartially.

Finally, a third juror had connections to a witness through their children and

likewise admitted that personal history may conflict with his duties as a juror if

selected.

        Following these lines of questioning, Fleck moved to strike all three for

cause. The court struck two of the jurors. The third did not serve on the jury panel.

Fleck timely moved for a mistrial, contending the statements made by the three

prospective jurors were prejudicial as they constituted improper determinations of

witness credibility. He also argues this unduly prejudiced his right to a fair trial

because the remaining jury panel had heard these statements. The district court

denied the motion, ruling there was not sufficient prejudicial effect to warrant a

mistrial.

        The jury found Fleck guilty on all four charges. On appeal, Fleck reasserts

that the district court abused its discretion in denying him a mistrial and claims

there is insufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. We review these claims in

turn.
                                           4

   II.      Discretionary Ruling against Mistrial.

         On appeal, Fleck asserts the district court abused its discretion in denying

his motion for mistrial. See State v. Webster, 865 N.W.2d 223, 231 (Iowa 2015);

State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 811 (Iowa 2017) (“We review denials of a mistrial

. . . for an abuse of discretion.”). We reverse the district court’s decision only if the

grounds or reasoning are “based on an erroneous application of the law or not

supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (citing State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668,

675 (Iowa 2014)).

         Fleck specifically points to the questioning of the three prospective jurors.

He equates the information elicited from these jurors to impermissible character

evidence elicited from a witness during trial and argues that it unfairly prejudiced

the jury panel. He further argues the actual bias of prospective jurors created

implied bias in the selected jury panel.

         “Unquestionably, a person accused of committing a crime has a

fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury whose determination of guilt or

innocence is based exclusively on evidence admitted at trial.” State v. Ary, 877

N.W.2d 686, 700 (Iowa 2016) (citing State v. Frank, 298 N.W.2d 324, 326 (Iowa

1980)). The district court can exercise its discretion to grant a new trial “[w]hen

from any other cause the defendant has not received a fair and impartial trial.”

Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2). In regards to voir dire, one prospective juror is generally

not going to contaminate an entire panel; however, it is possible to disqualify all

affected jurors when the questioning “become[s] so inflammatory and potentially

prejudicial.” Ary, 877 N.W.2d at 701 (citation omitted). The court considers if the

statements “reference the defendant, convey personal knowledge of the
                                            5

underlying facts at issue, or relay objective data that might otherwise bear on the

case.” Id.

          Fleck contends that the prospective jurors’ questioning elicited credibility

determinations outside of trial and contaminated the jury panel. But none of their

statements were pertinent to Fleck or the specific facts of the case. Rather, they

established the nature of the relationships between the prospective juror and their

respective witness. While the prospective jurors expressed difficulty or concern

about remaining impartial, none opined on Fleck’s guilt or the charges themselves.

Instead, this voir dire succeeded in ferreting out actual bias and removed

prospective jurors from the panel who were at risk of being partial. See Webster,

865 N.W.2d at 237 (“[Jury selection] allows attorneys to determine whether there

is a case for dismissing a juror and to form an intelligent basis for the exercise of

peremptory challenges.”). Because Fleck was able to exercise this right without

imparting bias on the rest of the jury panel, the circumstances do not rise to the

level of a mistrial. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion for a mistrial.

   III.      Sufficiency of the Evidence.

          The trial court instructed the jury that to find Fleck guilty of murder in the

first degree, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable

doubt:

                1. On or about February 19, 2021, [Fleck] struck [Bell].
                2. [Bell] died as a result of being struck.
                3. [Fleck] acted with malice aforethought.
                4. [Fleck] acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with
          a specific intent to kill [Bell].
                5. [Fleck] was not justified.
                                         6

       Jurors were further instructed that “premeditation need not exist for any

particular length of time before the act” and was defined as “to think or ponder

upon a matter before acting.” Fleck only challenges the fourth element, arguing

the State failed to present sufficient evidence to show he acted with premeditation

and specific intent to kill.

       We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law.

State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). “In conducting that review,

we are highly deferential to the [jury],” viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State and upholding the verdict if supported by substantial

evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to convince a rational

trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

       First, Fleck claims the evidence is insufficient to find he acted with

premeditation. He asserts he “blacked out,” preventing him from contemplating

his actions, and there is a lack of evidence showing preparation. Premeditation

can be established by circumstances, such as “evidence of (1) activity by the

defendant to plan the killing, (2) motive based on the relationship between the

defendant and the victim, or (3) the nature of the killing, including the use of a

deadly weapon combined with an opportunity to deliberate.”                State v.

Buenaventura, 660 N.W.2d 38, 48 (Iowa 2003). Premeditation can also be shown

through the violent nature of the crime itself and the defendant’s actions

immediately following. Id. at 49 (describing the victim’s attempts to defend herself

from attack and the defendant’s efforts to cover up evidence).
                                          7

       The evidence is sufficient to convince a rational factfinder beyond a

reasonable doubt that Fleck acted with premeditation. While a deadly weapon was

not used during the homicide and there is no evidence of substantial pre-planning,

neither is required. Instead, a jury can make this finding based on circumstantial

evidence. Id. at 48. First, evidence of motive was offered at trial. Facebook

messages were presented to allegedly show Fleck’s concerns about Bell being

unfaithful. Further, the nature of the killing itself is probative. Id. The medical

examiner responsible for Bell’s autopsy testified that Bell suffered “significant

bruising” and skull fractures. Finally, evidence of Fleck’s actions following the

events were introduced. Zazueta testified that he cleaned up and returned to the

scene later. Based on the offered circumstantial evidence, a jury could make a

finding that Fleck acted with premeditation.

       Similarly, Fleck contends there is insufficient evidence to establish the

requisite intent.   He cites the blackout, claiming no evidence shows that he

specifically intended to kill Bell. But the State introduced evidence of Fleck’s

interview with police, in which he recalled specific instances of the altercation with

Bell. This directly conflicts with Fleck’s claims he blacked out and remembered

none of the events before waking at Zazueta’s home in Des Moines. This type of

credibility determination, including circumstances that impact the ability to form

specific intent, is a jury determination. See State v. Wilkens, 346 N.W.2d 16, 20-

21 (Iowa 1984). We do not evaluate the evidence based on our own determination

but give great weight to the jury’s finding. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d at 202. Viewing

the evidence in the State’s favor, a jury could determine the evidence sufficient to

convict Fleck beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.
                                         8

   IV.      Conclusion.

         The district court properly exercised its discretion when it ruled on the

motion for mistrial. Further, substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that

Fleck acted with premeditation and specific intent to kill. Therefore, we affirm

Fleck’s conviction of first-degree murder.

   AFFIRMED.