State Of Iowa Vs. Emmanuel Fountain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 07–0999
Filed July 30, 2010
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
EMMANUEL FOUNTAIN,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Lawrence E.
Jahn, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction for the offense of
domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, claiming jury instruction
error. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J.
Japuntich, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Keisha
Cretsinger, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
2
BAKER, Justice.
The defendant, Emmanuel Fountain, appeals from his conviction
for the offense of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. He
contends his counsel was ineffective in failing to request a specific intent
instruction. Fountain argues that with a specific intent instruction the
jury may have found that he did not intend to make any insulting or
offensive physical contact with his then girlfriend, Levita Alexander. We
conclude the trial court erred in failing to give a specific intent
instruction because the crime of assault includes a specific intent
element; however, because we cannot determine whether Fountain’s
counsel was ineffective on this record, we preserve any claim based on
ineffective assistance of counsel for postconviction relief. On this record,
Fountain’s conviction is hereby affirmed.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In October and November of 2006, Levita Alexander and
Emmanuel Fountain lived together in an Ames apartment. Sometime in
November, Alexander decided to end the relationship and moved out of
the apartment. At the time, Alexander and Fountain had one child
together, four-month old Carmello, and Alexander was expecting their
second child. On December 26, 2006, Alexander and Carmello returned
to the apartment they once shared with Fountain to retrieve Alexander’s
belongings. At approximately 5:40 a.m. on December 27, a 911 call was
made alleging Fountain had assaulted Alexander.
Fountain was charged by trial information with serious assault—
domestic abuse in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1, 708.2A(2)(b),
and 236.2 of the Iowa Criminal Code. A jury trial was held, and the jury
found Fountain guilty of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.
3
Fountain appealed. Fountain claimed he received ineffective
assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to request a specific
intent instruction. His appeal was routed to the court of appeals. The
court of appeals affirmed Fountain’s conviction. Fountain filed an
application for further review with this court, requesting that his
conviction be reversed and he be given a new trial. We granted further
review.
II. Preservation of Error.
When submitting the charges to the jury at the close of Fountain’s
trial, the court gave a general intent instruction. Fountain’s attorney
made no objection to this instruction before it was submitted to the jury
and did not request an instruction on specific intent. Fountain claims
the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on specific intent
because assault has a specific intent element, and he received ineffective
assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to request such an
instruction.
Normally, objections to giving or failing to give jury instructions are
waived on direct appeal if not raised before counsel’s closing arguments,
and the instructions submitted to the jury become the law of the case.
See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.924; State v. Taggart, 430 N.W.2d 423, 425 (Iowa
1988). Fountain, however, raises failure to instruct the jury on specific
intent in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the
traditional error-preservation rules. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778,
784 (Iowa 2006). Fountain, therefore, may raise this claim on direct
appeal. Iowa Code § 814.7(2) (2005); 1 State v. Lucas, 323 N.W.2d 228,
1Unless otherwise specified, citations to the Iowa Code refer to the 2005 version.
4
232 (Iowa 1982). If a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised
on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings, the court may address it
if the record is adequate to decide the claim. See State v. Graves, 668
N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003). If the record is not adequate, the
defendant may raise the claim in a postconviction action. Iowa Code
§ 814.7(3).
III. Merits.
A. Analytical Framework. Fountain’s erroneous instruction
claim is raised in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim. Thus, we must decide whether it can be determined as a matter
of law that Fountain’s counsel was ineffective in failing to request a
specific intent jury instruction on Fountain’s domestic abuse assault
charge and whether the record demonstrates Fountain was prejudiced
because of this error. Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 869. Counsel has no duty
to raise an issue that has no merit. State v. Wills, 696 N.W.2d 20, 24
(Iowa 2005). Therefore, we must first “assess whether the record
demonstrates, as a matter of law, the existence or absence of a
meritorious [claim]” or error. Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 869.
B. Specific Intent Instruction. Fountain was charged with
domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. At trial, the jury was given
a general intent instruction. Fountain claims this instruction was
erroneous, because assault is a crime of specific intent, not general
intent.
1. Iowa Code section 708.1. Assault is defined in section 708.1 of
the Iowa Code. That statute provides in pertinent part:
An assault as defined in this section is a general intent
crime. A person commits an assault when, without
justification, the person does any of the following:
5
1. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury
to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which
will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the
apparent ability to execute the act.
2. Any act which is intended to place another in fear
of immediate physical contact which will be painful,
injurious, insulting, or offensive, coupled with the apparent
ability to execute the act.
....
2. Jury Instructions. At Fountain’s trial, the court gave the
following general intent instruction:
To commit a crime a person must intend to do an act
which is against the law. While it is not necessary that a
person knows the act is against the law, it is necessary that
the person was aware he was doing the act and he did it
voluntarily, not by mistake or accident. You may, but are
not required to, conclude a person intends the natural
results of his acts.
Fountain contends that assault is a specific intent crime, and the
trial court should have given Iowa Criminal Jury Instruction 200.2
published by the Iowa State Bar Association. This instruction reads:
“Specific intent” means not only being aware of doing
an act and doing it voluntarily, but in addition, doing it with
a specific purpose in mind.
Because determining the defendant’s specific intent
requires you to decide what [he] [she] was thinking when an
act was done, it is seldom capable of direct proof. Therefore,
you should consider the facts and circumstances
surrounding the act to determine the defendant’s specific
intent. You may, but are not required to, conclude a person
intends the natural results of [his] [her] acts.
Iowa Bar Ass’n, Iowa Crim. Jury Instructions 200.2 (available at
http://iabar.net).
“General intent is only the intention to make the bodily movement
that constitutes the act that the crime requires,” while specific intent
requires an act calculated to produce a result that the law forbids. 21
6
Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law §§ 118, 119 at 221–22 (2008). We have
recognized a similar distinction between the two types of intent:
“Specific intent is present when from the circumstances the
offender must have subjectively desired the prohibited result.
General intent exists when from the circumstances the
prohibited result may reasonably be expected to follow from
the offender’s voluntary act, irrespective of any subjective
desire to have accomplished such result.”
State v. Redmon, 244 N.W.2d 792, 797 (Iowa 1976) (quoting 1 H.C.
Underhill, Underhill’s Criminal Evidence § 55 (6th ed. 1973)).
3. Iowa Case Law. Under the common law, Iowa courts defined
assault as “an attempt to apply unlawful physical force to the person of
another, coupled with the apparent present ability to execute the [act].”
State v. Straub, 190 Iowa 800, 801, 180 N.W. 869, 869 (1921). Under
this definition, assault was defined as a general intent crime. See
Redmon, 244 N.W.2d at 797.
In 1976, the Iowa legislature enacted Iowa Code section 708.1
containing its current elements. See 1976 Iowa Acts ch. 1245(1), § 801
(codified at Iowa Code § 708.1 (1979)). This section became effective
January 1, 1978. 2 Id. ch. 1245(4), § 529. It was at this time the
legislature added the requirement that the act constituting assault must
be done with the intent to make physical contact that is insulting or
offensive to another. Iowa Code § 708.1(1) (1979). Despite the inclusion
of specific intent elements, we continued to hold that assault remained a
general intent crime even after the legislature amended the statute to its
current form. See, e.g., State v. Ogan, 497 N.W.2d 902, 903 (Iowa 1993),
2Prior to 1976, simple assault was not defined in the Iowa Code. In the 1975
Iowa Code, section 694.1 outlined possible punishments for a conviction of assault and
assault and battery, but it did not define the necessary elements of assault. Iowa Code
§ 694.1 (1975).
7
overruled by State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Iowa 2001); State v.
Brown, 376 N.W.2d 910, 913–15 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985).
In Heard, we overruled prior precedent and determined that based
on the statutory elements, an assault under Iowa Code section 708.1(2)
included a specific intent element. Heard, 636 N.W.2d at 231. We held
that the definition of assault contained in the Iowa Code required an
action done with the “intent to achieve some additional consequence so
as to qualify as a specific-intent crime.” Id. at 232.
Four months after the Heard decision, the Iowa legislature
amended the assault statute, adding the following sentence: “An assault
as defined in this section is a general intent crime.” 2002 Iowa Acts ch.
1094, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 708.1 (2003)). This amendment was in
response to the Heard decision. H.F. 2546 Explanation, 79th Gen.
Assem., Reg. Sess. (Iowa 2001). A year later, we addressed the effect of
this amendment on the definition of assault. See State v. Bedard, 668
N.W.2d 598, 601 (Iowa 2003). In Bedard, we concluded the “amendment
did not alter the substantive content of the statute as it pertains to the
elements of the crime.” Id.
Since 2003, we have had the opportunity to address the intent
requirement for assault multiple times. See State v. Keeton, 710 N.W.2d
531, 533 (Iowa 2006); State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 132 (Iowa 2004).
In each of these cases, including the most recent case involving this
issue, Wyatt v. Iowa Department of Human Services, 744 N.W.2d 89, 94
(Iowa 2008), we focused on the elements of the crime. In each of these
cases, we found that regardless of the specific label attached to the
crime—specific intent or general intent—the state must prove the
elements of the crime and their accompanying mens rea beyond a
reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Keeton, 710 N.W.2d at 534.
8
The elements of assault under Iowa Code section 708.1 have not
changed since our decision in Heard. Under this section, a defendant
must commit an act that he intends to cause pain or injury to the victim
or to result in physical contact that would be insulting or offensive to the
victim or to place the victim in fear of physical contact that will be
injurious or offensive. Iowa Code § 708.1(1), (2). Because the elements
of these assault alternatives include an act that is done to achieve the
additional consequence of causing the victim pain, injury or offensive
physical contact, the crime includes a specific intent component. See
Heard, 636 N.W.2d at 231–32. Therefore, we adhere to our prior
decisions holding that the 2002 amendment “did not alter the
substantive content of the statute.” Bedard, 668 N.W.2d at 601.
Our conclusion that assault includes an element of specific intent
is not inconsistent with the legislature’s action in amending the statute.
As we discussed, the legislature did not change the elements of an
assault; it merely designated assault as a general intent crime. In
criminal law, the designation of an offense as a general intent crime may
carry with it certain consequences. Although we do not decide the effect
or constitutionality of this amendment to the assault statute, we believe
the amendment was simply an attempt to prevent a defendant charged
with assault from relying on the defenses of intoxication and diminished
capacity. Heard, 636 N.W.2d at 233–34 (Neuman, J., concurring)
(stating “the defenses of intoxication and diminished responsibility . . .
are pertinent only to the specific-intent elements of a crime”); see also
Keeton, 710 N.W.2d at 533; Redmon, 244 N.W.2d at 797; Brown, 376
N.W.2d at 914–15.
9
Fountain is correct that the trial court erred in failing to instruct
on specific intent because the crime of assault includes a specific intent
element.
C. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Having found merit in
Fountain’s claim that the trial court should have given a jury instruction
on specific intent, we must now address Fountain’s contention that his
counsel was ineffective for failing to request a specific intent instruction.
The right to assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa
Constitution is the right to “effective” assistance of counsel. Ondayog,
722 N.W.2d at 784. To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence:
(1) that trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) that
prejudice resulted from this failure. State v. Lane, 743 N.W.2d 178, 183
(Iowa 2007). The claim fails if the defendant is unable to prove either
element of this test. Id. at 184.
Fountain’s counsel did not request a specific intent instruction
even though numerous Iowa Supreme Court opinions have unequivocally
stated that assault includes an element of specific intent. “While there is
a strong presumption of counsel’s competence, that presumption is not
absolute or irrebutable.” State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880, 897 (Iowa
2009) (Appel, J., specially concurring) (citing Osborn v. State, 573 N.W.2d
917, 922 (Iowa 1998)). The question we must answer “is whether a
normally competent attorney could have concluded that the question . . .
was not worth raising.” State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67, 72 (Iowa
1982). In Graves, we used this standard to determine that counsel
should have challenged prosecutorial use of “liar” and similar
phraseology to brand a criminal defendant. Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 881–
10
82. As noted in a special concurrence in Effler, “Graves stands for the
proposition that a competent lawyer must stay abreast of legal
developments.” Effler, 769 N.W.2d at 897.
Notwithstanding the legislature’s amendment of the assault
statute, we have clearly and repeatedly stated, that as the statute
currently reads, assault includes an element of specific intent. See
Wyatt, 744 N.W.2d at 94; Keeton, 710 N.W.2d at 533–34; Taylor, 689
N.W.2d at 132; Bedard, 668 N.W.2d at 601; Heard, 636 N.W.2d at 231.
In addition, at the start of the trial, the judge stated:
We’re still faced with the question of whether there
ought to be a specific intent instruction on the assault. The
Legislature defines assault as a general intent crime. There
will certainly be an intent instruction. I believe in my set of
instructions I have right now, I have not given [a] specific
intent instruction, so if you want one, let me know on that.
In Schoelerman, this court declared that “[a] normally competent
attorney . . . should either be familiar with the basic provisions of the
criminal code, or should make an effort to acquaint himself with those
provisions which may be applicable to the criminal acts allegedly
committed by his client.” Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d at 71–72. The same
is true of case law. See Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 882. Fountain’s attorney
should have been aware of the case law declaring that assault includes
an element of specific intent.
In addressing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims alleging the
use of an unreasonable trial strategy, however, we have stated:
[C]laims of ineffective assistance involving tactical or
strategic decisions of counsel must be examined in light of
all the circumstances to ascertain whether the actions were
a product of tactics or inattention to the responsibilities of
an attorney . . . .
11
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). “While strategic
decisions made after [a] ‘thorough investigation of law and facts relevant
to plausible options are virtually unchallengable,’ ” trial strategies based
on an investigation that is “ ‘less than complete’ ” for the difficulty of the
issues presented is susceptible to claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel. Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 143 (quoting Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 690–91, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2066, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 695
(1984)).
After reviewing the facts of this case and the evidence presented,
we conclude only trial strategy could explain counsel’s failure to request
a specific intent instruction, as specific intent is a higher burden for the
state to prove. It appears to be undisputed that Fountain and Alexander
had consensual sex twice on the night in question, and it was not until
the third sexual encounter that an assault was alleged; however, it is
unclear whether the prosecution was alleging that the assault was
incidental to the third sexual encounter or whether the assault was
alleged to be a separate act unrelated to the sexual encounter. If the
assault was alleged to be incidental to the sexual encounter a specific
intent instruction may have aided Fountain’s defense. On the other
hand, if an assault separate from the sex was alleged and the defense
was simply that it did not occur, the distinction between a general intent
instruction and a specific intent instruction may not have aided
Fountain. If the defense strategy is to deny that any assaultive contact
occurred, the individual elements of assault become unimportant.
Fountain never disputed that multiple physical encounters
occurred, but we cannot determine whether the defense strategy was to
deny that any assault occurred and argue that Alexander simply made
up the assault for reasons related to the custody of her son or was to
12
contend that the alleged injuries were merely the unintended byproduct
of the sexual encounter. On appeal and at trial, Fountain’s counsel
simply advanced the argument that the elements of an assault were not
present.
We, however, are once again confronted with the situation where
we may have been able to decide this issue based on the record below,
but cannot because the record simply does not exist as neither the
opening statement nor the closing argument were reported. Both
opening statements and closing arguments are revealing of a party’s
strategy and may be necessary for this court to adequately review the
performance of counsel. We will not speculate about the tack taken at
trial in assessing whether a given strategy was either adequate or
prejudicial. Because neither argument was reported, we cannot
determine either the prosecution’s theory of the case or the nature of the
defense strategy. 3
“[P]ostconviction proceedings are often necessary to discern the
difference between improvident trial strategy and ineffective assistance.”
Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d at 786. Such is the case here. Although trial
counsel failed to request the proper instruction, we are unable on this
record to assess whether the failure constituted ineffective assistance of
counsel. We therefore preserve this claim for possible postconviction
proceedings.
IV. Disposition.
We find that the trial court’s failure to give a specific intent
instruction was error; however, because we cannot determine whether
3For the reasons outlined above, we have recently amended Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.19(4) to require the reporting of opening statements and closing
arguments in criminal proceedings. See 2010 Iowa Ct. Order 0012 (effective August 16,
2010).
13
Fountain’s counsel was ineffective on this record, we preserve any claim
based on ineffective assistance of counsel for postconviction relief. On
this record, Fountain’s conviction is hereby affirmed.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.