State of Iowa v. Jeffrey Michael Moeller

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1764
Filed February 6, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEFFREY MICHAEL MOELLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Brook K.
Jacobsen, District Associate Judge.
Jeffrey Moeller appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated.
AFFIRMED.
Chad R. Frese of Kaplan & Frese, LLP, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Jeffrey Moeller appeals his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI),
third offense. Moeller claims the court abused its discretion by allowing a State
witness to improperly offer an opinion on Moeller’s intoxication and insufficient
evidence supported the jury’s verdict. We find the court did not abuse its discretion
in allowing the witness to testify and substantial evidence supports the jury’s
verdict.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Around 11:00 p.m. on May 13, 2017, law enforcement and emergency
personnel responded to a single car collision call. It was a clear night, and the
road, with a speed limit of fifty-five miles per hour, was in good condition with no
road construction or visibility conditions to cause difficulty driving. Moeller was
found belted into the driver seat of an overturned car; it appeared Moeller failed to
negotiate a gradual curve in the road and flipped his vehicle. The curve does not
have full-size warning signs but has reflector poles and a visible fog line along the
edge. Moeller was initially unconscious after the crash but awoke while personnel
worked to get him out of the car. After being extracted from his vehicle, Moeller
was flown to a hospital by helicopter.
During treatment for the injuries at the scene and in the hospital, Moeller
answered “no” to the investigating deputy’s questions if he had anything to drink;
“I don’t know” to questions of what and where he had been drinking; and then
refused to provide a blood or urine sample for testing. On May 23, law enforcement
asked Moeller to turn himself in to be charged with OWI. On May 31, Moeller
turned himself in and was processed into jail.
3
On July 5, the State filed a trial information charging Moeller with OWI, third
offense. In September, a jury trial was held. During the trial, the first-responding
officer testified he could not smell alcohol from an arm’s length away but Moeller
exhibited confusion. Next, a deputy sheriff testified on the road conditions and the
accident site. A firefighter, who helped extract Moeller from his vehicle and held
Moeller’s head during emergency treatment, testified on his actions and
conversation. The investigating deputy also testified and portions of his body
camera video were entered into evidence. Both the firefighter and investigating
deputy testified Moeller exhibited signs of intoxication and smelled of alcohol. On
September 14, the jury found Moeller guilty. On October 27, Moeller was
sentenced to 321J program residential placement for an indeterminate term of five
years. Moeller appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“We . . . review district court rulings on evidentiary issues for an abuse of
discretion.” Powers v. State, 911 N.W.2d 774, 780 (Iowa 2018). We review
sufficiency of evidence claims for correction of errors at law. State v. Thomas, 847
N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted). We will uphold a verdict supported
by substantial evidence in the record. State v. Showens, 845 N.W.2d 436, 440
(Iowa 2014). “Evidence is substantial when ‘a rational trier of fact could
conceivably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” State v.
Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016) (quoting State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d
37, 39 (Iowa 1997)). We will consider all evidence in the record, including all
reasonable inferences fairly drawn from the evidence, viewed in the light most
4
favorable to the State. State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 69, 704 (Iowa 2016). We
consider both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. Id.
III. Analysis
A. State witness. Moeller claims the court abused its discretion by
allowing an unqualified State witness to provide expert opinion testimony regarding
his intoxication. Scott Wiersma, a firefighter and detention officer in the county
sheriff’s office, responded to the scene, operated the “jaws of life,” and helped
extract Moeller from the vehicle. Wiersma testified he observed Moeller had
bloodshot, watery eyes and his breath smelled of alcohol during approximately ten
minutes of face-to-face contact.
Moeller claims Wiersma was presented as an expert witness without the
necessary training. While Wiersma testified as to receiving some training through
school, his work in the sheriff’s office, and as a security supervisor at the casino,
he also testified as to his frequent and regular contact with intoxicated persons.
The State asked Wiersma if he could form an opinion whether Moeller was under
the influence of alcohol “based on all your contacts with intoxicated people
throughout your various jobs and your training.” The court overruled Moeller’s
objection given Wiersma’s “prior testimony about his previous training and
experience.”
It is well settled that lay witnesses and those specially trained to recognize
the characteristics of intoxicated persons may express an opinion regarding
another’s sobriety as long as they have an opportunity to observe the person.
State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990). “[I]t has long been held that
a witness, either lay or expert, may testify to an ‘ultimate fact which the jury must
5
determine.’” Id. (quoting Grismore v. Consol. Prods., Co., 5 N.W.2d 646, 663 (Iowa
1942)). During his testimony, the witness specified the training he had undergone
and the signs he used to come to his opinion. Wiersma offered his personal
observation as to Moeller’s sobriety. The jury weighed his opinion based on the
facts before it. The trial court was within its discretion in allowing the witness to
offer his opinion for the jury to weigh.
B. Insufficient evidence. Moeller claims the State did not present
sufficient evidence he was under the influence of alcohol when operating his motor
vehicle. He states the most the jury could have concluded was he had been
operating a vehicle involved in the accident and he “may have been drinking.”
“[T]he determination of whether a person is under the influence of an
alcoholic beverage is focused on the conduct and demeanor of the person . . . .”
State v. Hutton, 796 N.W.2d 898, 904 (Iowa 2011). A person is “under the
influence” when the person has been drinking alcohol and (1) his reason or mental
ability has been affected, (2) he has impaired judgment, (3) he has visibly excited
emotions, or (4) he has lost control of bodily actions or motions to any extent. State
v. Dominguez, 482 N.W.2d 390, 392 (Iowa 1992). “The evidence of [the
defendant’s] driving could be used to prove that he was under the influence of
alcohol.” Id. The jury also could consider Moeller’s refusal to submit to a chemical
test. See Iowa Code § 321J.16 (2017).
Two emergency personnel with close, direct contact with Moeller—the
firefighter holding his head after Moeller was pulled out of the car and the
investigating deputy—noted Moeller had bloodshot, watery eyes and an odor of
alcohol on his breath. The deputy and firefighter, who both had considerable
6
experience around intoxicated persons, had the opinion Moeller was under the
influence of alcohol. The jury could make a reasonable inference from the accident
that Moeller lost control of his vehicle on a road in good condition with no
obstructions on a clear, dry, spring night. The officers did not have evidence of
any attempt to stop or swerve or an external cause for Moeller’s loss of control,
leading to a reasonable inference Moller had impaired reason, judgment, or bodily
control resulting in him driving off the road and flipping his vehicle. Moeller refused
to answer any question regarding his activities for the night and refused any
alcohol testing. When considering the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, we find substantial evidence
supports the jury finding Moeller got into the accident due to impairment from the
influence of alcohol.
AFFIRMED.