State of Iowa v. Joseph Allen Vanderflught ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0569
Filed August 30, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH ALLEN VANDERFLUGHT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, Thomas P. Murphy,
Judge.
Joseph Vanderflught appeals two convictions for attempt to commit murder.
AFFIRMED.
Karmen R. Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Doyle, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order under Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2023).
2
DOYLE, Senior Judge.
On direct appeal, Joseph Vanderflught challenges two convictions for
attempt to commit murder for firing a rifle into a passing car and striking the people
inside. He challenges his attorney’s representation, several district court rulings,
and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. Because we cannot
consider claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and we find
no merit in his claims of individual and cumulative error, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The State charged Vanderflught with two counts of attempt to commit
murder after he fired his rifle into a passing car, injuring the two people inside. At
the time, Vanderflught mistakenly believed that he was firing at a car driven by
Chance Newton, with whom he had been involved in an escalating feud. Just
before the shooting, a friend warned Vanderflught that Newton was driving to his
house with a gun “to deal with” Vanderflught. In response, Vanderflught retrieved
a rifle outfitted with a scope and waited in the yard.
At trial, Vanderflught testified he saw headlights and heard excessive
acceleration coming in his direction. He believed he saw police lights coming from
behind the car. Startled from hearing a gunshot and his daughter scream,
Vanderflught fired his rifle into the air. The car started to hit its brakes “and acted
like it was going to turn around and come back.” Vanderflught fired at the roof of
the car, and its back window exploded.
A jury found Vanderflught guilty as charged. The district court sentenced
Vanderflught to two twenty-five-year sentences, ordering the sentences to run
concurrently. Vanderflught appeals.
3
II. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel.
Vanderflught first contends his trial counsel’s representation was
unconstitutionally deficient, identifying objections that his attorney failed to make
during trial. He claims that these failures resulted in structural error, which affected
the framework of trial. But Iowa Code section 814.7 (2021) prohibits us from
deciding claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. See State v.
Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140, 159 (Iowa 2021). Thus, we do not address the individual
claims of ineffective assistance or the structural error claim that stems from them.
In the alternative, Vanderflught asks us to adopt a plain-error review, which
would allow us to consider the validity of those objections, even though they were
not brought to the court’s attention. We cannot. Our supreme court has
“repeatedly rejected plain error review,” State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109
(Iowa 2021), and we cannot overrule that precedent, see State v. Beck, 854
N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa 2014).
III. Evidentiary Rulings.
Vanderflught next contends the court erred by determining two exhibits
containing text messages he exchanged with others are relevant and admissible.
Although Vanderflught objected to the admission of both exhibits on relevance
grounds at trial, the nature of his evidentiary challenge is different on appeal.1 For
this reason, the State alleges that error is not preserved. But even assuming error
1 At trial, Vanderflught objected that the exhibits were not relevant because the
State had not yet elicited evidence that he was the person who fired the shots in
question. On appeal, he argues that “the majority of text messages . . . were wholly
irrelevant to the facts of this case” and the exhibits “contained a significant amount
of inflammatory texts that would have colored the juries opinion of [him].”
4
was preserved, the exhibits are relevant to explain the dispute that led to the
shooting and show Vanderflught’s intent to kill. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the exhibits into evidence. See State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d
792, 805 (Iowa 2021).
IV. Lead Detective’s Presence During Voir Dire.
Vanderflught also contends that he was denied a fair trial when the district
court allowed the lead detective to sit at counsel’s table during voir dire. He claims
that the detective sitting with the prosecutor during jury selection was like the
prosecutor vouching for him, bolstering his credibility as a witness. We review his
claim for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Sharkey, 311 N.W.2d 68, 70 (Iowa
1981) (reviewing a denial of the defendant’s motion to exclude the State’s
witnesses from the courtroom under an abuse-of-discretion standard); State v.
Frommelt, 159 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 1968) (stating that the trial court has
considerable discretion in conducting the trial). We reverse only if the court’s ruling
prejudiced Vanderflught. See Sharkey, 311 N.W.2d at 70.
Before trial, Vanderflught’s attorney noted that the detective was seated at
counsel table. He argued that it was not appropriate for any law enforcement
officer to sit with counsel during trial and asked the court to sequester all the
witnesses, including the detective. The prosecutor responded that the detective
was seated there to assist him during the trial, “starting with jury selection.” The
court allowed the detective to remain in the courtroom at counsel table during voir
dire but not while other witnesses testified.
5
Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.615 authorizes the court to exclude witnesses from
the courtroom:
At a party’s request, the court may order witnesses excluded
so that they cannot hear other witnesses’ testimony. Or the court
may do so on its own. But this rule does not authorize excluding:
a. A party who is a natural person.
b. An officer or employee of a party that is not a natural
person, after being designated as the party’s representative by its
attorney.
c. A person whose presence a party shows to be essential to
presenting the party’s claim or defense.
d. A person authorized by statute to be present.
The purpose is to prevent witnesses from shaping their testimony to conform with
the testimony of other witnesses. See Sharkey, 311 N.W.2d at 70. But a party
may not exclude a witness from the courtroom as a matter for right. See id.We note that only one word differs between the Iowa rule and its federal
counterpart, Federal Rule of Evidence 615. Compare Iowa R. Evid. 5.615 (stating
that “the court may order witnesses excluded” (emphasis added)), with Fed. R.
Evid. 615 (stating that “the court must order witnesses excluded” (emphasis
added)). Federal courts interpreting rule 615(b) have held it “allows the
investigative officer in a case to be the government’s designated representative to
assist the prosecutor at trial, notwithstanding that this officer will also testify at trial
as a government witness.”2 See, e.g., United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d
2 The advisory committee notes on the 1972 proposal of Federal Rule of
Evidence 615 notes that exception (b) adopts the federal court practice of “allowing
a police officer who has been in charge of an investigation to remain in court
despite the fact that he will be a witness.” In recommending adopting the rule, the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary expanded on the reasons for the practice,
which reflect the prosecutor’s statements at trial:
The investigative agent’s presence may be extremely important to
government counsel, especially when the case is complex or
involves some specialized subject matter. The agent, too, having
6
1250, 1257 (5th Cir. 1989). Because the rules are identical except to allow Iowa
courts greater discretion in excluding witnesses, we see no reason to interpret it
differently.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. Rule 5.615 allows the court
to exclude witnesses to prevent them from hearing the testimony of other
witnesses. Despite the exception set out in paragraph (b), the court did not allow
the detective to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses.
V. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Vanderflught challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction. He argues that the shooting was justified because he reasonably
believed that he was being fired upon.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of
legal errors. See State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Iowa 2001). In doing so,
we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See id. If substantial
evidence supports the verdict, we affirm. See id. Evidence is substantial if it would
lived with the case for a long time, may be able to assist in meeting
trial surprises where the best-prepared counsel would otherwise
have difficulty.
S. Rep. 93-1277 (1974), 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7072.
Although no Iowa cases have interpreted rule 5.615(b), Kansas prohibited
the practice of allowing a testifying law enforcement officer from sitting at counsel
table during the trial for the reasons identified by Vanderflught. See State v.
Sampson, 301 P.3d 276, 282–83 (Kan. 2013) (holding that the officer’s presence
at the table “created too great an impression that he was ‘clothed with public
authority,’ thereby improperly enhancing his credibility with the jury”).
[B]ecause of the likelihood of this practice enhancing a testifying law
enforcement officer's credibility with the jury in any given case, we
hold that from today forward, a trial court has no discretion to permit
a testifying law enforcement officer to sit at the prosecution table,
regardless of the practical benefits of that practice to the prosecution.
Id. at 283.
7
convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
See id.Vanderflught argues that even if he were mistaken about the danger
presented that night, his belief in that danger justified his actions. He notes the
information that he received from a friend that Newton was headed to his home
with a gun. The vehicle he shot at was the same color as Newton’s vehicle.
Vanderflught was also told that Newton was being chased by law enforcement,
and the vehicle he shot at was traveling at a high rate of speed and followed by a
law enforcement vehicle with its emergency lights engaged. Vanderflught testified
that he first fired after he heard a gunshot, and his daughter testified that a piggy
bank exploded in the kitchen when it was struck by a shot.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a reasonable
person could reject Vanderflught’s claim that he believed his family was in danger
on the night of the shooting. Although he claims he heard a shot, he did not tell
investigators about it until after the State charged him with attempted murder.
Vanderflught also claimed that he found the bullet that shattered the piggy bank,3
but he did not inform law enforcement when he found it. And he did not have the
bullet at the time of trial, claiming it was misplaced. Vanderflught also exchanged
messages with his friend that show he planned to shoot Newton, contradicting his
claim that he shot at the vehicle only after believing its occupants shot first. 4
Substantial evidence supports Vanderflught’s convictions.
3 Another person inside the house that night told investigators that the piggy bank
broke when it fell.
4 In his brief, Vanderflught notes that he “did not have any beef with” the two people
shot and “absolutely no motive to harm them.” But under the doctrine of transferred
8
VI. Cumulative Error.
Finally, Vanderflught claims that he is entitled to a new trial based on the
cumulative effect of the errors alleged. See State v. Carey, 165 N.W.2d 27, 36
(Iowa 1969) (concluding that no individual error alone required a new trial, but
reversing the defendant’s convictions and remanding for new trial because the
cumulative effect of those errors deprived the defendant of a fair trial). But we
cannot decide Vanderflught’s ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal, and
we find none of his other claims have merit. Without finding individual error, there
is no basis for reversing for cumulative error.
We affirm Vanderflught’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.
intent, any motive he had to harm Newton transferred to the vehicle’s occupants.
See State v. Mong, 988 N.W.2d 305, 313 (Iowa 2023) (“Iowa’s courts have
repeatedly applied the doctrine of transferred intent to impose liability where a
criminal defendant acts with intent to kill or harm one person but inadvertently kills
or harms an unintended person.”).