State of Iowa v. Kurt Jan Munn ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1216
Filed July 30, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
KURT JAN MUNN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L.
Harris, Judge.
Kurt Munn appeals following a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault
while using or displaying a dangerous weapon. AFFIRMED.
D. Raymond Walton of Beecher Law Offices, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Benjamin Parrott, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas Ferguson, County Attorney, and Peter Blink and Ryan Decker,
Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, J.
Kurt Munn appeals following a jury verdict finding him guilty of assault
while using or displaying a dangerous weapon. He alleges the district court
abused its discretion by preventing him from inquiring on cross-examination into
either the victim’s mental health issues or the victim’s desire for the charges to be
dropped against Munn. Munn also argues the court erred in refusing to grant him
a deferred judgment during sentencing.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On the morning of January 17, 2013, Munn was driving through Cedar
Falls and became involved in a road rage incident with another driver, Michael
Smith. Munn was seventy-one years old at the time of the incident. Although the
testimony is conflicting, both parties appear to have been travelling northbound
on a four-lane road when Smith came under the impression Munn had cut him
off. In response, Smith sped ahead of Munn’s vehicle and quickly pulled in front
of it, while allegedly shaking his fist at Munn. Munn in turn gestured obscenely at
Smith. As the two vehicles continued down the road with Smith in the lead,
Smith slowed to a speed greatly below the posted speed limit. Munn continued
to follow behind Smith as they both turned onto another four-lane road.
At this point Smith believed Munn was intentionally following him, and
Munn was under the impression Smith was “deliberately controlling him.” Both
parties testified they were afraid of the other learning where they lived. Neither
was aware they both resided in and were returning to the same neighborhood.
Smith eventually gestured behind him for Munn to pull over, switched on his
3
hazard lights, and pulled his vehicle over onto a short gravel access road. Munn
followed and parked behind Smith.
The nature of the ensuing events is contested by both parties. According
to Munn’s testimony at trial, Smith exited his vehicle first and started screaming
at Munn while waving his arms. As Munn got out of his vehicle, he retrieved his
handgun. He was licensed to carry the weapon. Both parties stood beside their
respective vehicles and began arguing. Munn contends he held the gun in his
left hand down at his side, in plain sight of Smith, with his finger not on the
trigger. When asked at trial if he had any intention to use the gun at this point,
Munn replied, “I only had it available. I want[ed] to see what this other guy [was]
going to do.” Smith began to approach Munn, yelling with his fists clenched.
Munn raised his right arm, a prosthetic outfitted with a metal hook, and told Smith
to stop because he felt threatened. Smith continued to approach him. When
Smith was within fifteen feet of Munn, Munn raised his gun and pointed it at
Smith’s chest, telling him to stop or he would shoot. According to Munn, at this
point “[Smith] instantly stopped and shut up.” Munn then lowered his weapon,
got back into his vehicle, and proceeded to leave the scene.
Smith’s testimony of the incident differs from Munn’s. According to Smith,
upon exiting his vehicle he put his hands in his pockets, so that he “wouldn’t look
aggressive.” As Smith stood next to his vehicle, Munn got out of his vehicle and
immediately pointed his gun at Smith. Munn told Smith that if he took another
step Munn would kill him. Smith exclaimed to Munn he was in severe chronic
4
pain at the time and that “if you pulled the trigger, you’d be doing me a favor.”1
He began to approach Munn while yelling and cursing. After Munn again told
Smith he would shoot him if he came any closer, Smith stopped and told Munn
he would go to jail for threatening him with a handgun. Munn lowered his
handgun at this and, after a further exchange of words with Smith, got into his
vehicle and left the scene.
After a police investigation, Munn was charged with assault while using or
displaying a dangerous weapon, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2(3)
(2013). Munn pled not guilty and claimed self-defense, arguing Smith was the
aggressor in the incident and that his actions were justified. Prior to trial, Smith
revealed in his deposition that he suffered from learning disabilities and bipolar
manic depression. He also revealed he had not taken any medication prescribed
to him since the 1980s. Munn intended to use this information while cross-
examining Smith, to challenge Smith’s perception and recollection of the events,
as well as to question Smith’s behavior at the time of the incident.
At trial, the district court sustained the State’s motion in limine and
prevented Munn from cross-examining Smith about his mental health. The court
also sustained the State’s relevancy objection to Munn asking Smith about his
previous desire to have the charges against Munn dropped. Following a three-
day trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Munn to a jail
term of 365 days, all but six days of which were suspended during Munn’s good
behavior. He was also placed on formal probation for two years and ordered to
1
Smith had been returning from a chiropractic appointment to treat complications
stemming from a prior neck injury.
5
complete an approved course for anger management. Munn filed a timely notice
of appeal.
II. SCOPE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.
State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 190 (Iowa 2013). A district court abuses
its discretion when its decision rests “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable
or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234, 239
(Iowa 2001). “A ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by
substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law.”
Id. To the extent Munn contends the district court erred in sentencing him, our
scope of review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440,
443-44 (Iowa 2006). If a sentence falls within the statutory limits, it will be set
aside only for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 44.
III. VICTIM’S MENTAL HEALTH DIAGNOSIS
Munn contends the district court abused its discretion when it sustained
the State’s motion in limine and prevented him from cross-examining Smith about
his mental health. Munn argues Smith’s mental health information is relevant to
his claim of self-defense and should have been admitted. He wanted to show at
trial that Smith’s diagnosis demonstrates “not only his tendency for explosive
behavior but also his difficulties with correctly perceiving events and reacting
appropriately to them.” Munn alleges the district court misconstrued the issue as
a request for Smith’s confidential information under Iowa Code sections
6
228.6(4)(b) and 622.10(4). He also argues Smith waived any right to
confidentiality by voluntarily disclosing his mental health issues at his deposition.
The right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to confront adverse
witnesses is guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). “Cross-examination is
the principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his
testimony are tested.” Id. at 316. A witness’s deposition may be used at trial for
a variety of purposes, “so far as admissible under the rules of evidence.” Iowa R.
Civ. P. 1.704.
Here, the State’s motion in limine sought to limit “any claim that the victim
in this case, Michael Smith, suffers from, has suffered, or did on the date in
question suffer from any mental health impairment. Any mention of the above
would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial to the State.”
Smith had willingly disclosed his mental health issues in his deposition. In
fact, he initially did so without being prompted by Munn, revealing his diagnosis
of bipolar disorder in response to a question of whether he had completed any
form of higher education. He revealed he had not seen a doctor for his condition
since the 1980s or taken any prescribed medication since that time. He stated
this medication was supposed to help him “stay calm.” Smith also stated: “[t]hree
or four times a year I would have bouts of depression and [] just try to maintain
myself and function.” Furthermore, he stated these bouts occurred in the fall and
winter. During this discussion Smith never once displayed any sign of hesitation,
7
embarrassment, or concern in disclosing the details of his diagnosis. The State
raised no objection to the questions or testimony during the deposition.
During argument for the State’s motion in limine to prevent Munn from
cross-examining Smith about these statements he made in his deposition, the
court repeatedly expressed concern for the privacy of Smith’s mental health and
mental health records:
THE COURT: But you’re asking me to disclose his mental
health—potentially his mental health records?
[Defense Counsel]: No, we’re not asking to disclose the
records. We’re just asking to be able to ask him what he’s already
told us.
After Munn explained the nature of his intended line of questioning and how it
was relevant to his claim of self-defense, the court remarked: “For purposes of
the court’s analysis, I believe that Iowa Code section 228.6(4)(b) and Iowa Code
section 622.10(4) govern.”
Iowa Code section 228.6(4)(b) states: “Mental health information may be
disclosed in a criminal proceeding pursuant to section 622.10, subsection 4.”
Section 622.10(4) states:
4. a. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the
confidentiality privilege under this section shall be absolute with
regard to a criminal action and this section shall not be construed to
authorize or require the disclosure of any privileged records to a
defendant in a criminal action unless either of the following occur:
(1) The privilege holder voluntarily waives the confidentiality
privilege.
(2) (a) The defendant seeking access to privileged records
under this section files a motion demonstrating in good faith a
reasonable probability that the information sought is likely to
contain exculpatory information that is not available from any other
source and for which there is a compelling need for the defendant
to present a defense in the case. Such a motion shall be filed not
later than forty days after arraignment under seal of the court.
8
Failure of the defendant to timely file such a motion constitutes a
waiver of the right to seek access to privileged records under this
section, but the court, for good cause shown, may grant relief from
such waiver.
(b) Upon a showing of a reasonable probability that the
privileged records sought may likely contain exculpatory information
that is not available from any other source, the court shall conduct
an in camera review of such records to determine whether
exculpatory information is contained in such records.
(c) If exculpatory information is contained in such records,
the court shall balance the need to disclose such information
against the privacy interest of the privilege holder.
(d) Upon the court’s determination, in writing, that the
privileged information sought is exculpatory and that there is a
compelling need for such information that outweighs the privacy
interests of the privilege holder, the court shall issue an order
allowing the disclosure of only those portions of the records that
contain the exculpatory information. The court’s order shall also
prohibit any further dissemination of the information to any person,
other than the defendant, the defendant’s attorney, and the
prosecutor, unless otherwise authorized by the court.
b. Privileged information obtained by any means other than
as provided in paragraph “a” shall not be admissible in any criminal
action.
Both section 228.6(4)(b) and 622.10(4) are of recent origin, passed by our
legislature in response to our supreme court’s decision in State v. Cashen. See
State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 481 (Iowa 2013). In Cashen, the
defendant argued the mental health records of the victim were relevant to his
claim of self-defense by relating to the victim’s credibility and “her propensities for
violence and explosive behavior.” State v. Cashen, 789 N.W.2d 400, 404 (Iowa
2010), superseded by statute, 2011 Iowa Acts ch. 8, § 2. The Cashen court
proceeded to outline a five-step protocol for a defendant’s attorney to gain
access to a victim’s mental health records. Id. at 408–10. The legislature
responded in its next session by adding sections 228.6(4)(b) and 622.10(4) to the
Iowa Code, creating a new protocol which heightened a defendant’s threshold
9
showing to warrant “the discovery of privileged medical records, including mental
health records, in a criminal case.” 2011 Iowa Acts ch. 8; see also Thompson,
836 N.W.2d at 481.
It is clear that sections 228.6(4)(b) and 622.10(4) of the Iowa Code govern
the discovery of privileged medical records. Here, Munn was making no attempt
to obtain or disclose Smith’s medical records. Rather, Munn was attempting to
cross-examine Smith based solely on the information he had voluntarily revealed
in his deposition. Sections 228.6(4)(b) and 622.10(4) do not apply. Accordingly,
we find the district court abused its discretion in holding these statutes governed
its analysis of whether Munn could cross-examine Smith about his mental
health.2 See Everly v. Knoxville Comm. Sch. Dist., 774 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Iowa
2009) (“Although our review is for an abuse of discretion, we will correct
erroneous applications of law.”).
However, we will reverse a trial court’s erroneous ruling on the
admissibility of evidence only if “a substantial right of the party is affected.” Iowa
R. Evid. 5.103(a). Harmless evidentiary error is not a basis for relief on appeal.
See State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 209 (Iowa 2008). “An erroneous
evidentiary ruling is harmless if it does not cause prejudice.” State v. Redmond,
803 N.W.2d 112, 127 (Iowa 2011). Where a nonconstitutional error is claimed,
“prejudice occurs when the party has ‘been injuriously affected by the error or . . .
has suffered a miscarriage of justice.’” Id. (quoting Parker, 747 N.W.2d at 209
(internal quotations omitted)). “[W]e consider a variety of circumstances in
2
In deciding this case, we need not address the question as to whether Smith’s mental
health status may have been excludable under some other reasoning.
10
determining the existence of harmless error, including the existence of
overwhelming evidence of guilt.” Parker, 747 N.W.2d at 210. “[U]nder rule
5.103(a) we presume prejudice—that is, a substantial right of the defendant is
affected—and reverse unless the record affirmatively establishes otherwise.”
State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19, 30 (Iowa 2004).
Here, the fighting issue at trial was whether Munn’s assault was justified.
The district court instructed the jury:
A person is justified in using reasonable force if he
reasonably believes the force is necessary to defend himself from
any imminent use of unlawful force.
If the state has proven any one of the following elements,
then the defendant was not justified:
1. The defendant started or continued the incident which
resulted in an assault upon Michael Smith.
2. An alternative course of action was available to the
defendant.
3. The defendant did not believe he was in imminent danger
of death or injury, and the use of force was not necessary to save
himself.
4. The defendant did not have reasonable grounds for the
belief.
5. The force used by the defendant was unreasonable.
The record shows there were no other witnesses to the incident besides Munn
and Smith. Munn testified to one version of the events that transpired, and Smith
testified to another version. Smith testified that when Munn exited his vehicle he
immediately pointed his gun at Smith. Munn testified he did not point his gun at
Smith until both men had already argued for some time and Smith began to
approach him in a threatening manner. The point at which the argument became
an assault is dependent on who the fact finder believed. Based upon this record,
any evidence impeaching Smith’s credibility as a witness, or relating to Smith’s
11
propensity for aggression, could impact a jury’s deliberations regarding any of the
above elements.
Munn argues Smith’s mental health diagnosis qualifies as such evidence,
and that “[he] should have been permitted to cross-examine Smith with regard to
his diagnosis and not only his tendency for explosive behavior but also his
difficulties with correctly perceiving events and reacting appropriately to them.”
Although we agree that Smith was qualified to testify as to his own mental health
diagnosis, the relevance of a twenty-five-year-old diagnosis is of questionable
probative value, especially in light of the lack of expert testimony or more recent
diagnosis or treatment.
Our supreme court’s decision in the 1976 case of State v. Harvey is
instructive. 242 N.W.2d 300 (Iowa 1976). In Harvey, the witness was a victim of
violent robbery who testified in-chambers that he had received psychiatric
treatment for a “nervous disorder.” Id. at 334. The defense wanted this
testimony read to the jurors to attack the witness’s credibility and reliability. Id.
His offer of proof consisted solely of the witness’s testimony that he was
hospitalized for a “nervous disorder.” Id. at 337. The court noted that
“[s]ignificantly, this in-chambers testimony did not reveal the nature of the
nervous disorder or in any way indicate in what manner [the witness’s] credibility
might have been affected.” Id. at 336–37. The court also noted that “nothing
was shown as to the effect mere admission to a hospital by reason of a ‘nervous
disorder’ would have on [the witness’s] powers of observation, recollection or
narration.” Id. at 337. Thus, Harvey held that the defendant’s offer of proof was
12
not sufficiently probative to be introduced to the jury on the issue of the witness’s
credibility and reliability. Id. at 338.
While Munn’s offer of proof here is greater than the offer in Harvey, it
nevertheless falls short of being sufficiently probative to introduce Smith’s mental
health diagnosis to the jury. Our review reveals no testimony, in either the offer
of proof or at trial, establishing a sufficient link between Smith’s mental health
diagnosis and his credibility or propensity for aggression. It is Smith’s behavior—
not a mental health diagnosis—that was significant as to whether he was the
aggressor. Munn could have questioned Smith on his actual behavior, his state
of mind, and his perception of the events without applying the mental health
label. Because there is no indication Munn was denied the opportunity to
examine Smith on these issues, we cannot say the court’s ruling on the motion in
limine injuriously affected him or that he suffered a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, Munn was not prejudiced by the district court when it prevented him
from cross-examining Smith about his mental health diagnosis. The court’s
ruling was harmless.
IV. VICTIM’S DESIRE TO DROP THE CHARGES
Munn also contends he should have been permitted to cross-examine
Smith about his alleged desire to drop the charges against Munn. He claims
such evidence is relevant to Smith’s perception of the events and also his
credibility as a witness. Munn argues had he been permitted to question Smith
about the issue, “[t]he jury could have determined that Smith had second
13
thoughts about his role in the incident and his reaction to it, including contacting
the police about it, and that Munn had a viable self-defense claim.”3
Relevant evidence is “evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action
more probable or less probable that it would be without the evidence.” Iowa R.
Evid. 5.401. Irrelevant evidence is inadmissible and relevant evidence is
admissible, “except as otherwise provided by the Constitutions of the United
States or the state of Iowa, by statute, by these rules, or by other rules of the
Iowa Supreme Court.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.402. Rulings on the relevance of
evidence are entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and warrant reversal
only when the court has abused its discretion. In re Det. of Williams, 628 N.W.2d
447, 456 (Iowa 2001).
The record shows Smith testified at trial, under oath, regarding his
perceptions of the events that transpired between himself and Munn. His desire
to see the charges against Munn dropped would not have any effect on the
content of his testimony or the jury’s deliberations over whether Munn committed
the crime of assault. Neither would it relate to the elements of the crime of
assault with a deadly weapon or a self-defense claim. Furthermore, the decision
of whether to prosecute a party is solely for the prosecutor. See State v. Iowa
Dist. Ct., 568 N.W.2d 505, 508 (Iowa 1997). We find the district court did not
abuse its discretion when it ruled such evidence irrelevant and inadmissible.
3
We decline to speculate about the plethora of reasons which may have caused Smith
to request dismissal of the charges.
14
V. SENTENCING
Finally, Munn contends the district court abused its discretion by refusing
to grant him a deferred judgment during sentencing. Although he concedes the
court adequately considered the appropriate sentencing factors, Munn alleges it
“drew unreasonable and untenable conclusions.” He argues the court
inappropriately considered what could have happened had Munn pulled the
trigger during his confrontation with Smith. Munn also claims the court did not
give sufficient weight to his concern that Smith would have followed him home or
that he could have perceived Smith to be reaching for a weapon in his pockets.
The district court is required to choose the sentencing options which, in its
discretion, provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation of the defendant and the
protection of the community. Iowa Code § 901.5. To this end, the court is to
consider “all pertinent matters . . . including the nature of the offense, the
attending circumstances, the defendant’s age, character, and propensities or
chances for reform.” State v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994). In
exercising its discretion, a court must state its reasons for imposing a particular
sentence, but is “generally not required to give its reasons for rejecting particular
sentencing options.” State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). As
such, “[s]entencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong
presumption in their favor.” Id.
Here, the record clearly shows the district court sentenced Munn for the
charge of which he was found guilty, not “impermissible uncharged conduct.”
The court properly considered the goals of sentencing, the nature of the case,
15
and the attending circumstances. It also considered Munn’s age, his lack of prior
major criminal history, his character, and his chances for reform. It was
appropriate for the court to draw attention to particular facts of the case when
stating the reasons for its sentence. We therefore find the court did not abuse its
discretion in sentencing Munn.
VI. CONCLUSION
Although the district court erroneously relied on the wrong code sections
when it prevented Munn from cross-examining Smith about his mental health
diagnosis, the evidentiary error did not prejudice Munn and as such was
harmless. In addition, because Smith’s desire to drop the charges against Munn
was irrelevant as to whether the crime was committed, the district court did not
abuse its discretion by disallowing examination of Smith on that issue. Finally,
because the court adequately considered the appropriate sentencing factors, it
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Munn.
AFFIRMED.