State of Iowa v. Dennis Lee Lawson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1613
Filed September 21, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DENNIS LEE LAWSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Patrick H. Tott,
Judge.
A defendant appeals the denial of his motions for mistrial and a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
Priscilla E. Forsyth, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Benjamin Parrott, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Doyle, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2022).
2
GREER, Judge.
Dennis Lawson was charged with second-degree robbery. At trial, he
objected to questions the State asked during voir dire, questions asked of
witnesses about exhibits not admitted into evidence, and statements made during
the State’s rebuttal to Lawson’s closing argument. After the case was submitted
to the jury and it began deliberations, Lawson moved for a mistrial based on
prosecutorial misconduct, citing statements from the State’s closing. The district
court took the matter under advisement, but it did not issue a ruling until after the
jury found Lawson guilty. After the verdict came back—but before the district court
ruled on the motion for mistrial—Lawson raised prosecutorial misconduct in voir
dire, case in chief, and closing statements in a written motion for a new trial.1 The
district court denied the motion for mistrial, noting that prosecutorial misconduct
occurred but finding it was not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial. The
district court also denied the motion for a new trial for the same reason. Lawson
appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
mistrial and motion for a new trial.
“[A] mistrial motion must be made when the grounds therefor first become
apparent.” State v. Waters, 515 N.W.2d 562, 567 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). “In
permitting the case to be submitted to the jury without asserting the denial of a fair
trial by reason of the alleged misconduct, defendant’s counsel indicates a
willingness to take a chance on a favorable verdict and waives the claim of
misconduct.” State v. Radeke, 444 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Iowa 1989); see also Kinseth
1 There were also a number of other post-trial motions in this case that are not at
issue in this appeal.
3
v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 68 (Iowa 2018) (“We require counsel to move for
a mistrial before the case is submitted to the jury to ensure that the court has ample
opportunity to ‘admonish counsel or instruct the jury’ before deliberations begin.”
(citation omitted)). In this case, Lawson did not request a mistrial until after the
jurors began deliberating, making the motion untimely.
Lawson’s motion for a new trial faces the same timing issue. While he
objected to questions during voir dire and the case in chief, he did not assert
prosecutorial misconduct or seek a mistrial at the time. State v. Krogmann, 804
N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (“[The defendant] objected only that the question
was argumentative . . . . [The defendant] cannot obtain a new trial based on
prosecutorial misconduct when he failed to move for a mistrial at the time.”); see
also Radeke, 444 N.W.2d at 479 (“A failure to request a mistrial for alleged
misconduct by opposing counsel must be asserted before the issues are submitted
to the jury.”). A motion for a new trial, then, could not revive the claims. See State
v. Droste, 232 N.W.2d 483, 488 (Iowa 1975) (“The grounds of a motion for new
trial must stand or fall on exceptions taken at trial and a party cannot in a post-
verdict motion amplify or add new grounds as a basis for relief.”). By the time
Lawson raised issues of prosecutorial misconduct involving the voir dire and case-
in-chief in a post-trial motion for a new trial, they had already been extinguished.
Because Lawson’s arguments surrounding prosecutorial misconduct were
waived, we decline to address them.
AFFIRMED.