Court Opinion

ID: 9895751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:06:32.955463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.828038
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 21-0797
                            Filed November 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAYQUANWNE DASHAWN GATES,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott J. Beattie, Judge.

      A defendant appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and possession

of a firearm as a felon. AFFIRMED.

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

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Heard by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
                                        2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

       Dayquawne Gates appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and

possession of a firearm as a felon. We find the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Gates’s motion for a mistrial. We also find Gates was not

prejudiced by a jury instruction on aiding and abetting because there was

substantial evidence to support the State’s other theory—that Gates was the

person who fired the fatal shots. We affirm Gates’s convictions.1

       I.     Background Facts & Proceedings

       Robert Freeman spent the evening of May 29, 2020, with a friend, Kamario

Hill, in Des Moines and stayed at Hill’s apartment overnight.       The following

morning, May 30, while Freeman was walking down the sidewalk in the area of

East Fourteenth and Dean Avenue, he was fatally shot. Officers received a report

of the shooting at 8:27 a.m. and responded within minutes. They found Freeman

without a pulse.   Six shell casings from a nine millimeter gun were nearby.

Freeman was transported to a local hospital where his death was pronounced.

       Officers spoke to Hill, Katelynn Shuey, and Cierra Parson that day. From

interviewing these witnesses, officers believed Gates was a person of interest.

Gates and Freeman both had a romantic interest in the same woman. After

viewing videos from security cameras in the area, officers became interested in a

gray Ford Focus with dealer plates.         When they located the vehicle, law

enforcement learned it was registered to Gates’s mother. Officers obtained a

search warrant for the vehicle. There was a spent nine millimeter shell casing

1 While Gates appeals both convictions, his arguments are limited to his conviction

for first-degree murder.
                                          3

under the hood near the windshield that matched the six shell casings found at the

scene.

         Footage obtained from security cameras near Gates’s home on Third Street

showed Gates exited his house at 8:06 a.m. on May 30, drove away in the gray

Ford Focus, and returned to his house at 8:36 a.m. The officers also obtained

footage from a fast-food restaurant, which reflected Gates going through the drive

through between 8:11 a.m. and 8:15 a.m.            Gates was interviewed by law

enforcement on two occasions. He initially told officers he had not left his home

the morning of May 30. When confronted with evidence of the video footage,

Gates indicated he was “in a weed coma” and did not remember driving the car

on the streets the morning of May 30.

         Gates was charged with murder in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code

sections 707.1 and 707.2 (2020). The trial information alleged Gates “committed

or aided and abetted in the commission” of first-degree murder. Gates was also

charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of section 724.26.2

Gates filed a motion to sever the charges and the court granted the motion. 3 In a

motion in limine, Gates asked the court to prohibit testimony of “pending or prior

criminal charges or convictions.” The court granted this request.

         During the jury trial on the murder charge, the following exchange occurred

between the prosecutor and a detective:

               Q. Upon conclusion of your interview with the defendant on
         June 5th of 2020, did you place him under arrest? A. Yes.

2 When officers searched Gates’s residence, they found a .38 handgun.           This
weapon was not involved in the shooting incident.
3 Gates stipulated to his prior conviction, and the court found him guilty of being a

felon in possession of a firearm.
                                          4

             Q. What was he charged with? A. He was charged with first-
       degree murder and felon in possession of a firearm.

Gates moved for a mistrial due to the reference to the charge of possession of a

firearm by a felon. The State argued the isolated statement was not prejudicial.

The court offered to provide a curative instruction, which Gates declined. The court

denied the motion for a mistrial.

       At the close of evidence, the State requested an instruction on aiding and

abetting, noting the trial information contained this theory. Gates resisted the

State’s request, asserting the State did not present sufficient evidence to support

giving the instruction. The State highlighted that the defense claimed someone

else had done the shooting. The court ruled there was sufficient evidence to give

an instruction on aiding and abetting.

       The jury found Gates guilty of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to

life in prison. Gates now appeals.

       II.    Motion for Mistrial

       Gates contends the district court should have granted his motion for

mistrial.4 He asserts that he was prejudiced when a detective testified that he was

charged with first-degree murder and possession of a firearm as a felon when the

charge of possession of a firearm as a felon was severed from the charge of first-

degree murder. He states the detective’s testimony informed the jury he was a

felon at the time of the current criminal charges and such testimony was in violation

of the court’s previous ruling on the motion in limine.

4 Gates’s appellate brief has several pages on the issue of error preservation.   The
State, however, does not dispute that Gates preserved error on this claim.
                                           5

       We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for mistrial for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Phanhsouvanh, 494 N.W.2d 219, 222 (Iowa 1992). The court

has broad discretion. State v. Hunt, 801 N.W.2d 366, 373 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

The district court is in the best position “to gauge the effect of the matter on the

jury.” Id. (citation omitted).

       “A mistrial is appropriate when ‘an impartial verdict cannot be reached’ or

the verdict ‘would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural

error in the trial.’” State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6, 32 (Iowa 2006) (citation omitted).

“The pertinent question here is whether the trial court was clearly unreasonable in

concluding an impartial verdict could be reached notwithstanding the witness’s

testimony.” Id.

       We find the statement at issue was a single, isolated reference. See State

v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1989) (“[P]rejudice results from persistent

efforts to inject prejudicial matter before the jury.” (alteration in original) (citation

omitted)). The State presented testimony from twenty-four witnesses in a seven-

day trial. See State v. Lopez-Aguilar, No. 17-0914, 2018 WL 3913672, at *4 (Iowa

Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018) (“The challenged evidence was insignificant given the

length of the trial and scope of the evidence. Trial in this matter lasted five days.

Twenty witnesses testified, including expert witnesses.”).

       The court offered to give a curative instruction, which the defendant

declined. See State v. Dominguez-Schiesl, No. 21-1402, 2023 WL 5949177, at *6

(Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2023) (noting that if the defendant felt he was prejudiced

he could have requested a curative instruction). But the court also recognized that

a curative instruction may draw attention to the statement. Here, the jury was not
                                          6

informed Gates was a felon. The detective stated Gates had been charged with

possession of a firearm as a felon, but a charge is not a conviction. See State v.

Wilson, 406 N.W.2d 442, 448 (Iowa 1987) (“A criminal defendant is presumed

innocent until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.”). Finally, there

is evidence directly linking Gates to the offense. A shell casing matching the shell

casings at the scene of the shooting was found in the vehicle driven by Gates at

the time of the shooting.

       We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Gates’s motion for mistrial.

       III.   Jury Instruction

       Gates claims the district court erred by giving the instruction on aiding and

abetting. He asserts that no evidence was presented to support this theory.

Challenges to jury instructions are reviewed for correction of errors at law. State

v. Spates, 779 N.W.2d 770, 775 (Iowa 2010). “Our review is to determine whether

the challenged instruction accurately states the law and is supported by substantial

evidence.” Id. “Error in giving a particular instruction does not warrant reversal

unless the error was prejudicial to the party.” Id.

       Although Gates presents his argument as an issue of whether the jury

should have been instructed on a theory of aiding and abetting, the underlying

question is whether the State presented substantial evidence Gates aided and

abetted another person in the commission of the offense. See State v. Smith, 739

N.W.2d 289, 293–94 (Iowa 2007) (noting defendant objected to an instruction on

joint criminal conduct and then analyzed whether there was substantial evidence

in the record to support that theory).
                                           7

         Iowa Code section 814.28 provides:

                When the prosecution relies on multiple or alternative theories
         to prove the commission of a public offense, a jury may return a
         general verdict. If the jury returns a general verdict, an appellate
         court shall not set aside or reverse such a verdict on the basis of a
         defective or insufficient theory if one or more of the theories
         presented and described in the complaint, information, indictment, or
         jury instruction is sufficient to sustain the verdict on at least one
         count.

Section 814.28 states that a jury’s verdict should be affirmed if there is sufficient

evidence to support any theory presented to the jury.5 See Dominguez-Schiesl,

2023 WL 5949177, at *6. “In other words, we are required to affirm if at least one

of the alternatives presented to the jury is supported by substantial evidence.”

State v. Triplett, No. 19-1902, 2021 WL 3074475, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 21,

2021).

         The jury was presented with two alternative theories—that Gates shot

Freeman or Gates aided and abetted the person who shot Freeman. The jury

returned a general verdict finding Gates guilty of first-degree murder. The State

presented substantial evidence to support at least one of these theories—that

Gates shot Freeman. The evidence showed Gates was driving a gray Ford Focus

with dealer plates on the morning of the murder and a car matching this description

drove by Freeman near the time of the shooting. Six shell casings from a nine

millimeter gun were found near Freeman’s body and a matching shell casing was

5 “Under prior law, if the evidence was insufficient under one alternative, we would

not try to divine which alternative the jury embraced and instead would reverse for
retrial.” State v. Hivento, No. 21-1445, 2023 WL 2395729, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 8, 2023). This practice ended when the legislature enacted section 814.28,
effective July 1, 2019. Id. Gates was tried in 2021, after the effective date of
section 814.28.
                                          8

found in the gray Ford Focus. There was also evidence of a motive, as Freeman

and Gates were interested in the same woman.

       Gates cannot show he was prejudiced by the instruction on aiding and

abetting because there is substantial evidence in the record to support his

conviction as the person who shot Freeman. Under section 814.28, we can affirm

Gates’s conviction because there is sufficient evidence to support this theory. See

Dominguez-Schiesl, 2023 WL 5949177, at *6 (stating that although the State

advanced two theories—that the defendant engaged in a shooting, or he aided

and abetted the shooters—his conviction could be affirmed under section 814.28

if there was sufficient evidence of any theory presented to the jury).

       Gates is not entitled to relief on his claim the district court improperly gave

an instruction on aiding and abetting. See State v. Mott, 759 N.W.2d 140, 149

(Iowa Ct. App. 2008) (“We will not reverse the district court unless prejudice results

from an erroneous jury instruction.”).

       We affirm Gates’s convictions.

       AFFIRMED.