Court Opinion

ID: 9408659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 15:07:19.688127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:45.256854
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 22-0397
                                Filed July 13, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LAWRENCE GEORGE CANADY III,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Patrick H. Tott,

Judge.

       The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for involuntary

manslaughter, willful injury causing bodily injury, and assault causing bodily injury.

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

       Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

       Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
                                         2

GREER, Judge.

        A jury convicted Lawrence Canady III of voluntary manslaughter, willful

injury causing bodily injury, and assault causing bodily injury. Canady challenges

some of the district court’s evidentiary rulings and argues there is insufficient

evidence to support his conviction for voluntary manslaughter.         Canady also

challenges his sentences, claiming the court should have merged his convictions

for voluntary manslaughter and willful injury causing bodily injury, wrongly relied

on the minutes of testimony when imposing sentence, and failed to state adequate

reasons on the record for consecutive terms.        Because some evidence was

improperly admitted, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

        Following the May 1, 2021 shooting death of Martez Harrison, Canady was

charged with the first-degree murder (count I), willful injury causing serious injury

(count II), and assault causing bodily injury (count III). Canady pled not guilty to

each of the charges, and the case was tried to a jury over several days in late

2021.

        At trial, the State introduced into evidence a video from a security camera

that captured a fight between Canady and Harrison outside of a bar in Sioux City.

As Canady fought Harrison, seventeen-year-old D.E. shot Harrison. After the first

shot, Canady continued punching Harrison, while D.E. walked closer and fired a

second shot. After a few more punches and kicks to Harrison by Canady, Canady
                                         3

and D.E. fled separately.1 Harrison died from the gunshot wounds later the same

day, and Canady and D.E. were quickly apprehended by police.

       The State’s theory of the case was that D.E. and Canady planned to kill

Harrison and worked in conjunction to do so. In support of this theory—and over

Canady’s objections—the State introduced into evidence an audio recording of a

jail phone call between Austin Rockwood and Canady (while Rockwood was

jailed). During the phone call on April 30, Rockwood told Canady that Harrison hit

Rockwood’s girlfriend in the face with a bottle the night before. Canady responded

in several ways, saying he would “put [Harrison] on his fucking neck” and “pick his

little ass up and slam him dead on his fucking head.” At one point, Rockwood told

Canady that “it’s tax season,” and Canady responded a few seconds later, “It’s tax

time. I swear to God.” At trial, Harrison’s fiancée, Jessica Goodman, was allowed

to testify what she believed Canady meant by “tax time”; she testified, “Taking

them—taking him for everything he gots; as in his pockets, everything, fighting him,

whatever it takes at this point. That’s what tax season means.”

       The State also introduced a video that was recovered from D.E.’s cell

phone. The video was recorded on April 26, and it appears Canady is holding the

phone recording while he raps along to a song that includes several names and

violent imagery. Canady raps along to a line about Teso or Tezzo, who “got hit”

plus lines about “my glock” and “catching bodies.” In the video, Canady also adds

1 The video itself is not perfectly clear; it came from a security camera attached to
a business near the bar and captured the actions of several individuals who were
some distance away during the night—around 1:00 a.m. That said, Jessica
Goodman, the fiancée of Harrison, was personally present at the scene of the fight
and shooting; she testified at trial in conjunction with the playing of the video for
the jury. Her narration went largely uncontroverted.
                                          4

“gang gang gang,” flashes a tattoo on his hand, and pans the camera to D.E., who

is fanning out money. Multiple witnesses at trial testified that the decedent, Martez

Harrison, was also known by the nicknames Tez and Tezzo. The defense offered

evidence that the song Canady was rapping along to is by a group from Chicago;

had hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube; and referenced several names,

including someone named Teso (rather than Tezzo).

       Finally, the State introduced a picture posted by D.E.’s Snapchat account

that Goodman saw a few hours after Harrison was shot. According to Goodman,

at approximately 3:30 a.m. on May 1, she saw the picture, which showed it was

posted “8h ago” or eight hours before Goodman saw it. The photo included D.E.

and another seventeen-year-old, J.H., standing in what appears to be a clothing

store. The display name on D.E.’s account was “Dwave” with multiple emojis,

including a gun emoji. Additionally, D.E. added text over the picture, which said,

“We bussing but don’t think shit sweat [gun emoji].” At trial, Goodman twice offered

her opinion on the meaning of the picture and caption. She testified, “I’m pretty

sure he meant sweet. But, basically, that they got the guns and they’re not

sweating shit.” A few questions later, Goodman testified, “I just think that it means

that they got guns and they’re going to shoot whoever. That’s what comes to me.

They’re not scared of anything.”

       Before the case was submitted to the jury, Canady moved for judgment of

acquittal. Regarding count II, willful injury causing serious injury, he argued that

because the State’s theory was Canady’s fighting with Harrison and there was no

evidence Harrison suffered a serious injury from the fist fight, the jury could not be

instructed on that charge. The district court agreed, ruling the jury would not be
                                         5

instructed on willful injury causing serious injury (a class “C” felony) but would be

instructed on the lesser-included charge of willful injury causing bodily injury (a

class “D” felony).

       The jury found Canady guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which is a lesser-

included charge of first-degree murder; willful injury causing bodily injury; and

assault causing bodily injury. Canady was later sentenced to prison terms of ten

years, five years, and one year, respectively, with all three sentences running

consecutively to one another.      The court also ordered Canady to serve the

sentences consecutive to his sentence in another case.

       Canady appeals.

II. Discussion.

       A. Evidentiary Challenges.

       Canady challenges several the court’s evidentiary rulings. “We review

evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Wilson, 878 N.W.2d 203,

210 (Iowa 2016). “We review hearsay claims, however, for corrections of errors at

law.” State v. Dessinger, 958 N.W.2d 590, 597 (Iowa 2021).

       We consider each of Canady’s evidentiary challenges in turn.

       1. Rap Video. Canady challenges the admission of the video extracted

from D.E.’s phone that showed him with D.E. while rapping along to a song on

April 26. Canady challenged the admissibility of the evidence in a motion in limine,

arguing “[t]here is no probative value to the introduction of this video and any

probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.”

See 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
                                            6

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”); see also State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d

792, 807 (Iowa 2021) (“Whether evidence should be excluded under rule 5.403 is

a two-part test: ‘First, we consider the probative value of the evidence. Second,

we balance the probative value against the danger of its prejudicial or wrongful

effect upon the triers of fact.’” (citation omitted)). Canady noted the State’s theory

regarding his motive to harm Harrison was a phone call from Rockwood to Canady

on April 30—four days after the video was recorded.

       The State filed a written resistance to Canady’s motion in limine. It claimed:

       One of the rap videos was dated April 27, 2021, which is a matter of
       days prior to the murder, and relevant to Lawrence Canady’s intent
       and motive. The evidence shows that Lawrence Canady may have
       had a motive and intent to kill Martez Harrison that predated the jail
       phone call of April 30.

The district court ruled the evidence was admissible, concluding that while it was

difficult to make out what Canady was saying in the video, “there are at least two

references to a ‘Tez’” and those references “are depictions of violence or threats

towards or to ‘Tez.’” After noting the video was “highly prejudicial to the defendant,”

the court concluded “the probative value of the evidence regarding [Canady’s]

intent is at least as highly probative as its prejudicial effect.”

       We disagree.2 While the State claimed in its resistance that the evidence

showed Canady “may have had a motive and intent to kill Martez Harrison that

predated the jail phone call of April 30,” the evidence actually introduced at trial

was devoid of anything suggesting Canady had the motive or intent to kill Harrison

2We have watched the video many times; we hear only one reference to Tezzo or
Teso. Regardless, a second mention of the name would not change our analysis.
                                         7

before he received the phone call from Rockford on April 30.3 Multiple witnesses

testified Harrison and Canady were friends and, while they had fought at times in

the past, they had always made up.

       The State wants us to rely on the existence of the rap video itself as

evidence of Canady’s intent to harm Harrison4—thereby making it relevant and

probative. But without other evidence to suggest Canady wanted to harm Harrison

as of April 26, we will not imbue meaning to Canady’s rapping along to a popular

diss track5 that includes several names,6 including one that sounds like the name

3 The State seemed to recognize as much; during its opening statement, the
prosecutor argued:
        And these—these events began with evidence of a jail phone call.
        The jail calls over at the jail were recorded on April 30th around noon.
        An inmate, his name is Austin Rockwood, made a phone call to
        Lawrence Canady. Rockwood told Canady, Martez Harrison
        assaulted my girlfriend, Mariah. He took a beer bottle to her face,
        put her in the hospital. You’re going to hear Lawrence Canady’s
        voice on that jail phone call, and you’re going to hear his anger, how
        mad he was. You’re going to hear Lawrence Canady’s voice say,
        I’m going to knock him on his head. He’s going to cuss and say, I’m
        going to knock him on his head dead. This is evidence of Lawrence
        Canady’s motive.
4 The State notes the lyrics were not written by Canady but emphasizes the fact

that Canady chose a song that includes a name that sounds like Tezzo and then
decided to record himself performing it. But we have no information regarding
whether Canady often rapped and recorded himself; there might have been many
songs that Canady chose to perform and record. Just because the State chose to
show this one specific video to the jury does not necessarily follow that Canady
made only one video of himself rapping.
5 A “diss” (or “dis”) is “a disparaging remark or act.” Diss, Merriam-Webster,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diss (last visited July 5, 2023).
6 At oral arguments, the State emphasized that no one alerted the district court that

the words on the rap video were from a song by a well-known rap group. We
recognize the district court was not told the name of the group who wrote the song
or the number of views the song has received, but we think it is clear from the rap
video that Canady is singing along to a previously recorded song. The reasons
for the district court to exclude the video would have been stronger if the court was
informed of more details surrounding the track.
                                        8

of a decedent.7 Common sense tells us that people often sing and rap along to

songs without those songs being autobiographical.           Cf. State v. Leslie,

No. 12-1335, 2014 WL 70259, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014) (finding the

presentation of a rap video would have been unduly prejudicial where “there [was]

certainly no evidence that everything [the decedent] mentioned in the rap videos

reflected his personal life”).

       With little to no probative value, the risk of unfair prejudice from the

admission of the video was high. The video shows Canady rapping along to lyrics

involving violent imagery. See Andrea Dennis, Poetic (In)Justice? Rap Music

Lyrics as Art, Life, & Criminal Evidence, 31 Colum. J.L. & Arts 1, 30 (2007) (“To

the extent that individuals associate rap music with crime and criminal behaviors,

they negatively perceive defendants who are involved with rap music.”). Canady

also adlibs the words “gang gang gang” over a part of the track while showing a

tattoo on his hand and then panning over to seventeen-year-old D.E. fanning out

a stack of cash. We believe the inclusion of this evidence may have suggested to

the jury that Canady was a member of a gang. See State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d

7 According to Erin Lutes et al., When Music Takes the Stand: A Content Analysis
of How Courts Use and Misuse Rap Lyrics in Criminal Cases, 46 Am. J. Crim. L.
77, 84 (2019):
       Gangsta rap, in particular, “operates within a well-documented poetic
       tradition within African American culture that ritualizes invective,
       satire, obscenity and other verbal phenomena with transgressive
       aims.” In so doing, the genre often emphasizes violence in inner-
       cities, especially as it relates to gangs, albeit not necessarily in an
       accurate manner. Rather, there are “lyric formulas” in rap music, a
       key one of which involves fictionalized bragging about the
       performer’s sexual prowess, talent, wealth, and “badness” vis-à-vis
       criminal behavior.
(Footnotes omitted.)
                                           9

557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“[E]vidence of gang membership and activity is inherently

prejudicial. It appeals to the jury’s instinct to punish gang members.”). The

admission of the video was unfairly prejudicial because it “ha[d] an undue tendency

to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” Lacey, 968 N.W.2d at 807 (citation

omitted). The district court abused its discretion in admitting the video.

       2. Audio Recording of Jail Phone Call. Canady challenges the admission

of the audio recording of Rockwood from the jail, arguing the State failed to lay the

proper foundation that the person speaking to Rockwood on the call was Canady.

In the alternative, he argues that any statements made by Rockwood were hearsay

statements not admissible pursuant to any exception, so the recording should not

have been admitted.

       We begin with the claims about proper foundation. Our test for admitting

recorded conversations is whether the evidence establishes the recordings are

accurate and trustworthy. See State v. Weatherly, 519 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Iowa Ct.

App. 1994).     For evidence to be admissible, it must satisfy foundational

requirements.    Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.901 deals with authenticating and

identifying evidence. At the time of Canady’s trial, it stated in part:

               a. In general. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or
       identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce
       evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the
       proponent claims it is.
               b. Examples. The following are examples only—not a
       complete list—of evidence that satisfies the requirement:
               (1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that an
       item is what it is claimed to be.
               ....
               (5) Opinion about a voice. An opinion identifying a person’s
       voice—whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic
       transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at any time
       under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.
                                          10

               (6) Evidence about a telephone conversation. For a telephone
       conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned
       at the time to:
               (A) A particular person, if circumstances, including self-
       identification, show that the person answering was the one
       called . . . .

Iowa R. Evid. 5.901.

       In its ruling on the motion in limine, the district court concluded:

       [Canady] seeks to prevent the State from introducing into evidence
       the contents of a phone call purportedly between Austin Rockwood
       and [Canady] . . . . The State contends that the phone call contains
       admissions by a party opponent under [Iowa] Rule [of
       Evidence] 5.801(d)(2)(A). The Court finds that if the State is able to
       create a proper authentication for the recording of the phone call
       under [r]ule 5.901(a)(5) or (6) that it would be admissible as
       admissions by a party opponent under [r]ule 5.801(d)(2)(A). The jail
       phone log will establish that the call was with Austin Rockwood and
       references were made to “L” by Rockwood during the call. As long
       as State’s witnesses are able to lay the foundation that “L” would be
       a reference to [Canady] and/or can identify [Canady’s] voice on the
       call, the call would be admissible as admissions by a party opponent
       to show [Canady’s] reaction to the allegation that “Tezzo” had
       assaulted Rockwood’s girlfriend.

At trial, Jorma Schwedler, a sergeant from the county jail, testified about how the

jail phone calls are recorded. Schwedler also testified as to the specific nine-digit

phone number Rockwood dialed on April 30. That phone number was linked to

Canady through the testimony of Officer Josh Tyler. Additionally, both Goodman

and Detective Paul Yaneff testified they were familiar with the voices of Rockwood

and Canady and identified theirs as the voices on the phone calls. This is sufficient

foundation.8 See, e.g., State v. Reynolds, No. 15-0226, 2016 WL 6652311, at *6

(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2016).

8  Canady complains the district court admitted the call before all these
identifications were made. But any alleged error in the premature admission of the
recording was harmless, as the necessary foundation was ultimately laid. Cf. Iowa
                                          11

       Next, Canady concedes that if it was established it was him speaking with

Rockwood on the recording, his statements were admissible against him. See

Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(d)(2)(A) (defining an opposing party’s statement made by

party as non-hearsay).      Still, he claims that the recording was inadmissible

because Rockwood’s statements were hearsay that did not fall within any

exception. But the State did not offer Rockwood’s statements for the truth of the

matter asserted, so they were not hearsay. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(c) (defining

a statement as hearsay when the statement was not made while testifying at trial

and it was “offer[ed] into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the

statement”).   There was no need to prove whether Harrison hit Rockwood’s

girlfriend with a bottle. As the district court found, the purpose of the offering

Rockwood’s statements was to show Canady’s reaction to the information

regardless of whether that information was true. See McElroy v. State, 637 N.W.2d

488, 501 (Iowa 2001) (“[A] statement that would ordinarily be deemed hearsay is

admissible if it is offered for a non-hearsay purpose that does not depend upon the

truth of the facts presented. For example, the statement may be offered simply to

demonstrate it was made, to explain subsequent actions by the listener, or to show

notice to or knowledge of the listener.” (internal citations omitted)).

       The jail phone call was properly admitted.

R. Evid. 5.103(a) (“A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence
only if the error affects a substantial right . . . .”); State v. Redmond, 803 N.W.2d
112, 127 (Iowa 2011) (“A trial court’s erroneous admission of evidence is only
reversed on appeal if ‘a substantial right of the party is affected.’ An erroneous
evidentiary ruling is harmless if it does not cause prejudice.” (internal citation
omitted)).
                                         12

        3. D.E.’s Snapchat Photo. Finally, Canady challenges the admission of

the pictures posted to D.E.’s Snapchat account, which showed D.E. with J.H. and

was captioned, “We bussing but don’t think shit sweat [gun emoji].” Canady argues

the statement written on the picture was inadmissible hearsay and that any

probative value of the exhibit was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair

prejudice. We start with his second argument first because even if the statement

falls within an exception to hearsay, it must still pass rule 5.403 muster to be

admitted.9 See State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Iowa 2003) (“[A] district

court has no discretion to deny the admission of hearsay if the statement falls

within an enumerated exception, subject, of course, to the rule of relevance under

rule 5.403 . . . .”).

        Like Canady, we question the probative value of the exhibit. In its argument

for admission, the State lumped this exhibit in with others and claimed it was

relevant “to show that [D.E.], [J.H.], and Canady are connected and that they

shared the same common purpose to seriously injure and kill Martez Harrison.”

But the exhibit does nothing to show Canady was connected to D.E. and J.H.

Canady is not in the photo, and there is no evidence he was ever even aware of

its existence. As Canady argued in his motion in limine:

        [Trial exhibit 52] is a social media post of [D.E.] and [J.H.] with a
        message that shows a small image of a gun. [Canady] is not pictured
        or referenced in the post. No relevance or connection to [Canady] is
        apparent in the social media posts. Introduction of such evidence is
        merely an attempt to show guilt by association and is not probative
        of any charge against this defendant.

9 The district court ruled the photo could be admitted as a statement of a co-
conspirator; it did not consider whether the evidence was unduly prejudicial under
rule 5.403.
                                           13

The exhibit is not relevant for the purpose it was offered by the State. And the risk

of undue prejudice was high. Especially after the court allowed Goodman to testify

as to what she believed D.E.’s caption on the photo meant: “I’m pretty sure he

meant sweet. But, basically, that they got the guns and they’re not sweating shit.”

Again, without any evidence Canady even knew about this statement, the risk of

undue prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value of the exhibit.

       The district court abused its discretion in admitting exhibit 52.

       4. Remedy.

       The State argues that even if the court should not have admitted the rap

video and the Snapchat post, any error was harmless. See State v. Thoren, 970

N.W.2d 611, 636 (Iowa 2022) (“When a district court commits a nonconstitutional

error by admitting evidence it should have excluded, we do not reverse the

defendant’s conviction if the error was harmless.”). The State focuses on the fact

that the jury did not convict Canady of first-degree murder, which it takes to mean

the jury was not moved or persuaded by the rap video or the picture—both of which

the State argued showed Canady was involved with a plan to kill Harrison.

       But we cannot confidently say that Canady was not “injuriously affected by

the error” and did not “suffer[] a miscarriage of justice.” Id. (citation omitted). While

the evidence supporting his convictions for willful injury causing bodily injury and

serious assault was overwhelmingly strong—his actions having been both caught

on video and largely uncontested—his role in the shooting death of Harrison is

much less clear. Moreover, our standard requires us to “presume prejudice and

‘reverse unless the record affirmatively establishes otherwise.’” Id. at 637 (citation

omitted).
                                          14

        So, we reverse Canady’s convictions. Because retrying Canady is only

appropriate if substantial evidence exists, we must still reach Canady’s sufficiency-

of-the-evidence claim regarding his conviction for voluntary manslaughter.10 See

Dullard, 668 N.W.2d at 597 (providing that double jeopardy principles prohibit a

retrial “when the defendant’s conviction is reversed on grounds that the evidence

was insufficient to sustain the conviction”).

        B. Sufficiency of the Evidence.

        Canady challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction

for voluntary manslaughter.       “In determining whether there was substantial

evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.” State v.

Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997).           “Substantial evidence means such

evidence as could convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. “In determining if there was substantial evidence, we

consider all of the evidence in the record, not just the evidence supporting a finding

of guilt.” Id.

        To properly convict Canady of voluntary manslaughter, the State had the

burden to prove all of the following:

                1. On or about the 1st day of May 2021, the defendant aided
        and abetted [D.E.] in shooting Martez Harrison with a gun.
                2. Martez Harrison died as a result of being shot by [D.E.] with
        a gun.
                3. The shooting was done solely by reason of sudden, violent
        and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation.
                4. Neither Lawrence Canady nor [D.E.] were acting with
        justification.

10Canady does not question the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his other
two convictions.
                                        15

The jury was further instructed that:

       “Aid and abet” means to knowingly approve and agree to the
       commission of a crime, either by active participation in it or by
       knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or
       when it is committed. Conduct following the crime may be
       considered only as it may tend to prove the defendant’s earlier
       participation. Mere nearness to, or presence at, the scene of the
       crime, without more evidence, is not “aiding and abetting.” Likewise,
       mere knowledge of the crime is not enough to prove “aiding and
       abetting.”

       Here, Canady challenges the evidence supporting the first element—that

he aided and abetted D.E. in shooting Harrison. But Canady’s recitation of the

evidence casts doubt and raises credibility questions on some of the witnesses’

testimony, which is not part of our review on sufficiency claims. “When evaluating

sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence,

pass upon the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations,

or weigh the evidence . . . .” State v. Howland, No. 22-0519, 2023 WL 3613259,

at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2023) (citing State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761

(Iowa 2006)).

       Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational

factfinder could determine that Canady and his friends—including D.E., who was

carrying a gun—sought out Harrison to harm him in retaliation for hitting

Rockwood’s girlfriend. Canady and his friends tried to get inside the bar to get to

Harrison, but they were stopped by the bar’s bouncer and the manager. When the

manager spoke to Canady to tell him he was not allowed in, Canady responded

that they would be waiting outside for Harrison and told the manager they had a

gun. Recognizing the trouble outside, Harrison called his fiancée for a ride home.

When Goodman arrived a short time later, Canady and his friends surrounded her
                                          16

outside the bar. Goodman heard Cannady tell D.E. to “just go ahead and get that,”

which Goodman understood to mean a gun. At about that time, Harrison exited

the bar and came out near the group. Canady punched Goodman in the face,

which led to Harrison and Canady physically fighting. While Canady and Harrison

were on the ground, D.E. shot Harrison one time. Canady did not stop hitting

Harrison; he did not turn around to check who fired the shot, nor did he run for

cover. As Canady continued hitting Harrison, D.E. walked closer and fired a

second shot. Canady hit and then kicked Harrison a few more times before fleeing

in a car; D.E. fled on foot with the gun. When police stopped Canady in the car

just a few minutes later, Canady told them the shooter fled in a Chrysler 300.

         A jury could infer from Canady instructing D.E. to get a gun once Goodman

arrived to pick Harrison up (when it made sense to expect Harrison to exit the bar)

and his continued fighting with Harrison even after D.E. fired the first shot11 that he

was actively participating in or knowingly advising or encouraging D.E.’s shooting

of Harrison. So, there is substantial evidence to support Canady’s conviction for

voluntary manslaughter.

         C. Sentencing.

         Because we reverse Canady’s convictions and remand for new trial, we do

not consider his challenges to the sentences imposed by the district court.

III. Conclusion.

         Because the district court abused its discretion in admitting the rap video

and the Snapchat picture, we reverse Canady’s convictions.             As substantial

11   The medical examiner testified “that both wounds were potentially fatal.”
                                        17

evidence supports Canady’s conviction for voluntary manslaughter, he can be

retried on that, as well as willful injury causing bodily injury and assault causing

bodily injury.

       REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.