State of Iowa v. Carlos Hernandez Ventura

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0661
Filed May 2, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CARLOS HERNANDEZ VENTURA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Paul R. Huscher,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from his three convictions for first-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Benjamin M. Parrott, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2018).
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Carlos Hernandez Ventura appeals from his three convictions for first-
degree murder. On appeal, Hernandez Ventura maintains the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to strike a juror for cause. He also maintains
the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity
and that the instruction informing the jury the defense of compulsion was not
available to him should have included language that evidence relevant to that
defense may still be relevant to other issues in the case.
Motion to Strike. During voir dire, Hernandez Ventura challenged for cause
a potential juror on the grounds the potential juror could not be fair and impartial
toward him. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.18(5)(k) (allowing either the State or the
defendant to challenge a juror for cause when the potential juror has “formed or
expressed such an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant as would
prevent the juror from rendering a true verdict upon the evidence submitted at
trial”). The district court denied Hernandez Ventura’s motion, ruling:
I think the question is whether or not a juror has a—not
whether they have a preconceived opinion, but whether they have a
preconceived opinion that they cannot lay aside.
And I think [the potential juror] has indicated that she believes
she can listen to the evidence in the case and make a decision based
on the evidence and the instructions of the court.
Defense counsel ultimately used a peremptory strike to remove the juror from the
panel. Hernandez Ventura asks us to revisit our supreme court’s ruling in State v.
Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743, 747 (Iowa 1993), in which the court overruled the
longtime historical precedent of presuming prejudice from the fact that the
defendant has been forced to waste a peremptory challenge. Following
3
Neuendorf, “[t]he search for legal prejudice must therefore focus on the potential
for prejudice that flowed from forcing defendant to use a peremptory challenge on
[the challenged juror] that might have been used to remove another juror.” 509
N.W.2d at 746. It is up to the defendant to “make some factual showing that this
circumstance resulted in a juror being seated who was not impartial.” Id.While we are not at liberty to revisit precedent, our supreme court recently
revisited Neuendorf in State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566, 583–84 (Iowa 2017). In
Jonas, the court ruled that when the district court abuses its discretion by
improperly refusing “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 challenges have been
exhausted.” 904 N.W.2d at 583. When the defendant does so, “prejudice will then
be presumed.” Id. However, “where a judge improperly denies a challenge for
cause but the defendant does not specifically ask for an additional peremptory
challenge of a particular juror after exhausting his peremptory challenges,”
Neuendorf remains good law. Id.
Here, even if we assume without deciding that the district court’s denial of
Hernandez Ventura’s for-cause challenge was an abuse of discretion, Hernandez
Ventura is not entitled to a new trial. First, Hernandez Ventura did not have the
benefit of Jonas’s requirement of requesting an additional peremptory strike at the
time of his trial and did not ask for an additional peremptory challenge after his had
4
been exhausted.1 Thus, we apply the Neuendorf standard and do not presume
prejudice. In order to obtain relief, Hernandez Ventura has the burden to establish
“that the jury that did serve in the case was not impartial . . . based on matters that
appear o[n] record.” Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d at 747. Hernandez Ventura
concedes he cannot establish prejudice under this standard.
Jury Instructions. Hernandez Ventura makes a two-part challenge to the
jury instructions. First, he maintains the district court was in error in denying his
request to instruct the jury on the defense of necessity. Second, he claims that
the instruction informing the jury the defense of compulsion was not available to
him should have included language that evidence relevant to that defense may
still be relevant to other issues in the case.
We review the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction for correction
of errors at law. See Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016).
This is our standard because “Iowa law requires a court to give a requested jury
instruction if it correctly states the applicable law and is not embodied in other
instructions.” Id.We consider Hernandez Ventura’s argument about the necessity-defense
instruction first. “Ordinarily, the district court must instruct on a defendant’s theory
of defense provided the defendant makes a timely request, the requested theory
of the defense instruction is supported by the evidence, and the requested
1
We are unconcerned that Jonas was decided after Hernandez Ventura’s trial but before
his appeal, as we apply the same test in either situation. Before Jonas, Hernandez
Ventura had the burden to establish that his jury was not impartial to create a presumption
of prejudice under Neuendorf. After Jonas, because Hernandez Ventura did not request
the additional peremptory strike, we still apply the actual prejudice test of Neuendorf.
5
instruction is a correct statement of the law.” State v. Ross, 573 N.W.2d 906, 913
(Iowa 1998). “[T]he defendant has the burden of generating a fact question on the
defense.” State v. Walton, 311 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Iowa 1981). “If all the
requirements of the defense are not addressed in the defendant’s evidence, [the]
trial court is not obligated to submit the issue to the jury.” Id. In determining
whether the defense should be submitted to the jury, we must consider the
following factors: “(1) the harm avoided, (2) the harm done, (3) the defendant’s
intention to avoid the greater harm, (4) the relative value of the harm avoided and
the harm done, and (5) optional courses of action and the imminence of disaster.”
Id.Here, we agree with the district court that Hernandez Ventura had not
created a fact question sufficient to submit the theory to the jury. “The necessity
defense does not apply except in emergency situations where the threatened harm
is immediate and the threatened disaster imminent.” Id. Even if we credit
Hernandez Ventura’s testimony, he was approached by Daniel Leake on the
evening of Friday, October 28 and told that if he did not kill his girlfriend, Lourdes
Leake; her daughter, Melany Baraza; and their landlord, Juan Jimenez Tejada,
Daniel would kill Hernandez Ventura’s family in Virginia. Hernandez Ventura then
thought about what to do for a full day—twenty-four hours—before killing the three
people. Because there were many options he could have availed himself of during
that time, we cannot say this is a situation where “[t]he defendant [was] stripped of
options by which he . . . might avoid both evils.” Id. Thus, the district court did not
err in refusing to instruct the jury on the necessity defense.
6
Next, we consider Hernandez Ventura’s claim that the district court erred in
refusing to include in the instruction that informed the jury that a defense of
compulsion was not applicable language that evidence relevant to the defense of
compulsion may be relevant to other issues in the case. Based on his request for
the additional language, Hernandez Ventura was concerned the jury would read
the instruction saying the compulsion defense was not available, “therefore, he is
guilty. And move on.” As we understand this argument, he was concerned the
instructions would shift the burden of proof. But the trial court is not required to
use the language or wording suggested by the parties. Knauss v. City of Des
Moines, 357 N.W.2d 573, 577 (Iowa 1984). And here, considering the jury
instructions as a whole, see State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 694 (Iowa 2017), the
jury was properly instructed that Hernandez Ventura was presumed innocent and
it was the State’s burden to overcome that presumption. Thus, we cannot say the
district court erred in refusing to include the additional language Hernandez
Ventura requested.
AFFIRMED.