State v. Shafer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-2011
Filed February 7, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DERRICK JAY SHAFER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Lucy J. Gamon,
Judge.
Derrick Shafer appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second
degree. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Presiding Judge.
Derrick Shafer appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the second
degree. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in failing to grant a motion to
strike a juror for cause. Asserting he had to use a peremptory challenge to strike
the juror, he claims prejudice should be presumed in such circumstances and that
he is therefore entitled to a new trial.
Our supreme court has held that “[p]rejudice will no longer be presumed
from the fact that the defendant has been forced to waste a peremptory challenge.”
State v. Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743, 747 (Iowa 1993). Shafer requests Neuendorf
be overruled. As an intermediate appellate court, we do not possess the power to
overturn that court’s rulings. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 584 n.1
(Iowa 2014) (“Generally, it is the role of the supreme court to decide if case
precedent should no longer be followed.”); State v. Eichler, 83 N.W.2d 576, 578
(Iowa 1957) (“If our previous holdings are to be overruled, we should ordinarily
prefer to do it ourselves.”); State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App.
1990) (“We are not at liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).
Furthermore, our supreme court recently stated, “Neuendorf remains good law.”
State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566, 583 (Iowa 2017).1
We need not determine whether the district court acted within its discretion
in denying Shafer’s motion to strike the prospective juror for cause, for
in order to show prejudice when the district court improperly refuses
to disqualify a potential juror under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
2.18(5)(k) and thereby causes a defendant to expend a peremptory
challenge under rule 2.18(9), the defendant must specifically ask the
court for an additional strike of a particular juror after his peremptory
1
Jonas was decided after the parties had filed their appellate briefs.
3
challenges have been exhausted. Where the defendant makes such
a showing, prejudice will then be presumed.
Id. Shafer did not identify an additional juror who the defense sought to remove
from the jury through the exercise of an additional peremptory challenge. As a
result, the actual prejudice test of Neuendorf controls. See id. Shafer admits he
can make no showing of actual prejudice. Consequently, Shafer cannot succeed
in this appeal.
AFFIRMED.