State of Iowa v. Mary Ann Strickler ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 19-0217
    Filed June 17, 2020
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    MARY ANN STRICKLER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Kevin Parker,
    District Associate Judge.
    Mary Strickler appeals her conviction of conspiracy to commit theft.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    Robert G. Rehkemper of Gourley, Rehkemper, & Lindholm, P.L.C., Des
    Moines, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Heard by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.
    2
    MULLINS, Judge.
    Mary Strickler appeals her conviction of conspiracy to commit theft. She
    argues (1) insufficient evidence was presented in support of her conviction and the
    district court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) the trial court
    erred in denying motions to dismiss; (3) the district court issued an errant jury
    instruction; (4) inadmissible hearsay evidence was admitted; and (5) the
    inadmissible hearsay evidence was also in violation of Strickler’s constitutional
    rights under both the United States and Iowa Constitutions.
    I.     Background Facts and Proceedings
    Strickler was hired as an elementary teacher by Main Street Montessori and
    Middle School (Main Street) in 2014. Main Street was a private school founded by
    Tanya Apana and governed by a board of directors (board). During her time as a
    teacher at Main Street, Strickler supplied her classroom with materials and
    supplies in addition to those provided by the school. Strickler purchased supplies
    with both personal and school funds. At times, Strickler had supplies purchased
    with school funds shipped to her home. She and her husband would assemble
    and preview materials to ensure familiarity with them prior to use in the classroom.
    Some supplies were obtained by other teachers for use at Main Street. Thus,
    Strickler’s classroom contained both her privately-owned and school-owned items.
    Prior to the winter of 2017, multiple visions for Main Street’s expansion
    emerged. A group called “movers” hoped to move the school to a larger structure
    in the Des Moines area to attract more students and use the Montessori teaching
    method.    The other group, “non-movers,” hoped to maintain the Main Street
    3
    location and ultimately opined the two groups should split. Strickler aligned with
    the movers and Apana with the non-movers.
    As expansion discussions progressed, they became strained. The movers
    found a location and began to develop a new Montessori school in the spring of
    2018. They also sent an email to families of Main Street students to advertise the
    new school’s existence.      Apana was alerted and took action.          Strickler’s
    employment was terminated on March 23, 2018, effective immediately. 1 Other
    Main Street employees resigned and engaged in the new school’s development.
    Through text messages, Strickler and other employees discussed removing their
    personal property from Main Street. During the discussion, Strickler told the others
    to “bring receipts” or communicate with the board about removing personal
    property.
    On March 22, Apana contacted police after an employee removed a printer
    from Main Street. She also reported that other items were missing from the school
    and accused Strickler and others that were members of the movers group. Apana
    told police she would handle the issue through her attorney and would involve
    police only if attorney fees were too expensive. In May, Apana sought police
    intervention. She alleged more property was missing and that Stickler and another
    person used school funds to purchase personal items. Apana listed items worth
    $870.35 that had been taken from Main Street on a preliminary search. The final
    report totaled $2095.00. Strickler was arrested and charged with theft in the
    1 Strickler petitioned for, and was awarded, unemployment benefits following her
    termination.
    4
    second degree.     In November, Strickler was also charged with one count of
    conspiracy to commit theft.
    Through the course of proceedings, an Assistant Warren County Attorney
    had other Main Street employees and former employees served with subpoenas
    for a “hearing.” Strickler moved for permission to appear and cross-examine each
    witness. The motion and a subsequent motion to quash the subpoenas were set
    for hearing after the date the “hearings” were to take place. Each person appeared
    and provided a sworn statement to police in Strickler’s absence.         Strickler’s
    motions, including multiple motions to dismiss, were denied. Trial was held in
    December 2018. A jury found Strickler guilty of conspiracy to commit theft and not
    guilty of second-degree theft.    Strickler appealed following the imposition of
    sentence.
    II.    Standard of Review
    “Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed for a correction of errors
    at law.” State v. Sanford, 
    814 N.W.2d 611
    , 615 (Iowa 2012). Courts consider all
    evidence presented, inclupatory and exculpatory, and inferences drawn therefrom
    in the light most favorable to the State.
    Id. The verdict
    will stand if supported by
    substantial evidence.
    Id. “Evidence is
    considered substantial if, when viewed in
    the light most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational jury that the
    defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    Id. “The State
    has the burden to
    prove every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the defendant is
    charged, and the evidence presented must raise a fair inference of guilt and do
    more than create speculation, suspicion, or conjecture.”      State v. Fintel, 
    689 N.W.2d 95
    , 100 (Iowa 2004).
    5
    III.   Analysis
    Strickler argues the State did nothing more than present evidence creating
    speculation, suspicion, or conjecture. She asserts that the record contains no
    evidence of an agreement between her and any other person to take property that
    rightfully belonged to Main Street. Strickler alleges the real issue is that the mover
    group created a competing school and argues ownership of the property contained
    therein could not be conclusively proved. Strickler also asserts there was no
    testimony from any witness that Strickler removed materials from Main Street that
    did not belong to her. The State argues the facts that the movers created a new
    school and Montessori materials ended up there gives rise to a reasonable
    inference that the movers conspired to remove the supplies from Main Street. The
    State alleges the communications between Strickler and her colleague asking that
    the Montessori materials be set aside and removed to the new school reveal her
    intent to deprive Main Street of property, and that Strickler improperly asked a
    colleague to purchase supplies for the new school using Main Street funds.
    The Iowa Code section defining conspiracy states, in relevant part:
    1. A person commits conspiracy with another if, with the intent
    to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime which is an
    aggravated misdemeanor or felony, the person does either of the
    following:
    a. Agrees with another that they or one or more of them will
    engage in conduct constituting the crime or an attempt or solicitation
    to commit the crime.
    b. Agrees to aid another in the planning or commission of the
    crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit the crime.
    2. It is not necessary for the conspirator to know the identity
    of each and every conspirator.
    3. A person shall not be convicted of conspiracy unless it is
    alleged and proven that at least one conspirator committed an overt
    act evidencing a design to accomplish the purpose of the conspiracy
    by criminal means.
    6
    4. A person shall not be convicted if the only other persons
    involved in the conspiracy were acting at the behest of or as agents
    of a law enforcement agency in an investigation of the criminal
    activity alleged at the time of the formation of the conspiracy.
    Iowa Code § 706.1 (2018). Thus, in order to convict Strickler of conspiracy to
    commit theft, the State had to prove (1) Strickler agreed with one or more persons
    to remove property owned or possessed by Main Street, (2) Strickler entered into
    the agreement with the intent to deprive Main Street of the property, (3) Strickler
    or another member of the agreement committed an overt act, and (4) no member
    of the agreement was a law enforcement agent investigating the alleged theft or
    assisting the theft investigation when the agreement began.           See State v.
    Speicher, 
    625 N.W.2d 738
    , 741 (Iowa 2001).
    The record contains several pages of text message conversations between
    Strickler and her alleged co-conspirators. The text messages prove that Strickler
    intended to remove property from Main Street that belonged to her, encouraged
    others who were leaving the school to remove property that belonged to them, told
    people to bring receipts from purchases to prove their ownership of items or speak
    to the board about removing items, and wanted certain Montessori materials
    brought to the school by a teacher to be moved to the new school. What the text
    messages do not prove is who removed the allegedly stolen materials from Main
    Street, the existence of any agreement between Strickler and employees identified
    in the jury instructions to take items that did not belong to them, or that Strickler
    solicited others to take property that did not belong to them for the new school.
    The State insists that Strickler solicited another employee to take Montessori
    materials that an employee gave to Main Street after she obtained them from the
    7
    closed Sayre Montessori school. However, the text messages show that Strickler
    believed the other employee had the power to dictate where those materials would
    end up—that they were the property of the other employee to distribute. That
    employee was not listed in the jury instruction as a person with whom Strickler
    allegedly made an agreement, and Strickler asked the employee to bring the
    question of whether the materials could be transferred to the board’s attention,
    undermining the State’s attempt to prove her intent to promote a theft.
    Furthermore, when police informed Strickler that she was in possession of an item
    Main Street owned, as proved by the purchase receipt,2 Strickler returned it to Main
    Street. Based on our review of the record, we find the evidence lacking. The
    evidence is not sufficient to support a finding of guilt that Strickler agreed with
    anyone to aid in the planning or commission of theft or solicitation to commit theft
    of property owned by Main Street, only evidence of an agreement to remove
    property owned by the employees and to notify the board or provide receipts
    showing ownership. The few inconsequential items that police seized from the
    new school as property from Main Street were promptly returned when identified
    even though the State presented no evidence of who purchased or owned the
    items; and the jury found Strickler not guilty of theft. Accordingly, we find the State
    did not present evidence sufficient to convince a rational jury beyond a reasonable
    doubt of Strickler’s guilt of conspiracy to commit theft.
    2   The receipt shows a purchase in the amount of $51.75.
    8
    Based on our finding insufficient evidence was presented to support
    Strickler’s guilt, we need not reach the merits of any other issue raised on appeal,
    no matter how compelling. We offer no opinion on those issues.
    IV.    Conclusion
    Because insufficient evidence was presented to convince a rational jury
    beyond a reasonable doubt of Strickler’s guilt of conspiracy to commit theft, we
    reverse the district court’s conviction and remand for entry of judgment of acquittal.
    See State v. Miller, 
    874 N.W.2d 659
    , 667 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). We offer no opinion
    on any other issue raised on appeal.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-0217

Filed Date: 6/17/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/17/2020