IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1238
Filed November 25, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GINGER LEA JEFFERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Stephen B. Jackson,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from her conviction and sentence for murder in the
first degree. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Rachel C. Regenold,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Heard by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Ginger Jefferson appeals from her conviction and sentence for murder in
the first degree. She maintains she received ineffective assistance from trial
counsel. Specifically, she maintains trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
object to the admission of the interrogation audio, which contained evidence of
prior bad acts and Jefferson’s1 dislike of the victim’s interference in conversations
about Native American culture, in violation of the ruling on the motion in limine.
Even if the State violated the agreement by admitting the unredacted audio of
Jefferson’s police interview and counsel should have objected, Jefferson cannot
establish that she suffered prejudice. Thus, trial counsel did not provide
ineffective assistance, and we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Kerry, the victim in this case, was married to Dustin, the son of the
defendant. Kerry and Dustin had a difficult and volatile marriage, and on
September 25, 2013, they were living separately. Dustin was staying at the
home of his cousin Carlos in Tama, Iowa.
At approximately 10 a.m., Jefferson and her daughter, Sahara, went to
Carlos’ home to visit Dustin. Kerry was also visiting Dustin at the time.
Jefferson, Sahara, and Dustin discussed the “politics” of the defendant returning
to a job at the Meskwaki Settlement. At some point during the conversation,
Kerry joined in and expressed that Jefferson should “jump at the chance” to
return. Jefferson was upset by Kerry’s participation in the conversation.
1
Although multiple people involved in the case share the last name of Jefferson, we
refer to the defendant as Jefferson throughout and refer to others by their first names.
3
Kerry left for approximately an hour to visit her mother. During that time,
Jefferson, Sahara, and Dustin drank alcohol at Carlos’ home. When Kerry
returned, she brought a bottle of whiskey and joined the others in drinking.
Sometime before 1 p.m., Jefferson, Dustin, and Sahara left in Dustin’s car.
During the drive, Sahara became upset and tried to jump out of the moving
vehicle. Dustin stopped and allowed Sahara to get out, and she walked into a
cornfield. Sahara refused to return to the car, so Dustin and Jefferson left her
while they returned to Tama. A police officer later located Sahara wandering on
the highway at 2:37 p.m. and transported her to the Grinnell Medical Center.
At approximately 1:30 p.m., Kerry made her first of several telephone calls
to the Meskwaki Police Department. She was providing the police information on
how to locate Dustin so they could arrest him on an outstanding warrant for
sexual abuse. During the same time period, Kerry made several calls to Dustin.
At 2:22 p.m., Kerry inadvertently called the police department. The
secretary who answered the call could hear Kerry arguing with two people. She
heard Kerry yell they were both going to jail for what they did. The secretary was
eventually able to get Kerry’s attention, and Kerry apologized for accidentally
calling and then hung up.
Kerry made one last call to the police department at 2:35 p.m. As a result
of the call, officers were dispatched to Carlos’ residence in order to arrest Dustin
on the outstanding warrant.
Two officers arrived at Carlos’ residence at 2:44 p.m. As they neared the
residence, they noticed Dustin’s vehicle was just pulling into the driveway, and
they pulled in behind it. Sergeant Kimberly Schwartz approached Dustin’s
4
vehicle and asked him to step outside of the vehicle. Instead of getting out,
Dustin attempted to put his car keys back in the ignition as if to flee. Sergeant
Schwartz drew her Taser and ordered Dustin to step out of the vehicle. Dustin
got out of the vehicle and stated that he needed to check on his wife. Sergeant
Schwartz noted that Dustin seemed distressed and drunk at the time. He then
told her that he thought his wife was dead and that the officers needed to go
check on her. Sergeant Schwartz observed what she believed to be blood on
Dustin’s clothing. The police then entered the residence and found Kerry dead in
a pool of blood on the floor. She had sustained two stab wounds to the neck.
Meanwhile, Amber Navarro—the girlfriend of Jefferson’s nephew—was
outside of her residence approximately one block from Carlos’ residence. She
was waiting for the school bus to drop her children off when she heard Jefferson
inside the house yelling, “Daniel, Amber, Daniel, Amber.” Amber entered her
home and found Jefferson crying in the dining room. Jefferson stated she “got
into it with Kerry” and she believed Kerry was dead. Jefferson told Amber she
stabbed Kerry in the neck twice and blood started squirting out. Amber saw that
Jefferson had blood on her hands and was worried the children would see it
when they arrived home from school. Amber told Jefferson to go to the kitchen
and wash her hands. When she attempted to move to the kitchen, Jefferson fell.
When Amber tried to help her stand, Jefferson touched Amber’s shirt and left a
blood stain. Amber called her boyfriend Daniel who advised her to call the
police. Before she did so, Amber called Carlos to warn him not to let his children
go home from school. She was worried about what his children would find if they
entered the home. She also called Laurie Davenport—the defendant’s daughter-
5
in-law—at the request of Jefferson. Davenport heard Jefferson say that she
stabbed Kerry twice in the neck. Jefferson then asked for “help with a bus ticket”
so she could leave town. Davenport refused. Amber then called the Tama
Police Department and reported what Jefferson had told her. Officers were
dispatched and ultimately took Jefferson into custody as a material witness. The
same day, Amber delivered her t-shirt to the police station.
Jefferson was taken to the police station, and an audio recording was
made of the interrogation. Jefferson told the officers that she had gone to
Amber’s directly after she and Dustin returned to Tama. She stated that when
they returned to Carlos’ home, she saw Amber standing in the front yard talking
on her cell phone. Jefferson said Kerry had an “evil smile” on her face, so she
decided to walk to Amber and Daniel’s home. She stated she was just talking
and smoking with Amber when police arrived. She denied that she had harmed
or quarreled with Kerry, and she maintained she never reentered Carlos’
residence after leaving with Dustin and Sahara. She could not answer police
questions about how the blood had gotten on her clothing.
Jefferson was charged with murder in the first degree.
Prior to trial, Jefferson filed a motion in limine. In it, Jefferson requested
the court order the State not to make any reference to “an alleged previous
physical confrontation” between Jefferson and the victim as well as “Jefferson’s
alleged dislike of the alleged victim due to Ms. Kerry Jefferson being a White
American.” The State resisted the motion.
At the hearing on the motion, the State agreed it was “not seeking to
introduce the specific bad act” of the physical encounter between Jefferson and
6
Kerry. The State also agreed there was an “allegation that perhaps the
Defendant’s motive for the murder was to prevent her daughter-in-law from
getting her son’s per cap should he go to prison on an unrelated charge” and the
State “wasn’t saying that.” At the conclusion of the hearing, the court asked both
attorneys, “Do you think we have an understanding about [the two issues]?” and
both agreed they did.
A jury trial commenced on May 19, 2014.
Kristin Evans, a DNA analyst from the Iowa Division of Criminal
Investigation (DCI), testified that Kerry’s DNA was found on Jefferson’s clothes
as well as Dustin’s clothes. She also testified that the blood on the knife found in
Carlos’ backyard matched Kerry’s blood. Dustin had admitted to law
enforcement that the knife was his, although he denied carrying it every day and
stated the last time he saw the knife, it was sitting by the sink in Carlos’ kitchen.
The jury found Jefferson guilty of murder in the first degree. She was
sentenced to life in prison. Jefferson appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
A defendant may raise an ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal if
the defendant has reasonable grounds to believe the record is adequate for us to
address the claim on direct appeal. State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa
2006). If we determine the record is adequate, we may decide the claim. Id. We
review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Id. This is our
standard because such claims have their basis in the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 494 (Iowa 2012).
7
III. Discussion.
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution
and article I section 10 of the Iowa Constitution provide a defendant is entitled to
the assistance of counsel.2 A defendant is entitled to effective assistance of
counsel. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). To prevail on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove the following
elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) trial counsel failed to perform
an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted from counsel’s failure. Snethen v.
State, 308 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1981). Because Jefferson has raised multiple
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we look at the cumulative effect of the
prejudice arising from those claims. State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 501 (Iowa
2012). Prejudice is established when it is reasonably probable the result of the
proceeding would have been different. State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630, 637
(Iowa 2008). Put another way, the question is whether our confidence in the
verdict is undermined by counsel’s deficient performance. King v. State, 797
N.W.2d 565, 574 (Iowa 2011). Jefferson’s claims fail if either element is lacking.
See Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151, 159 (Iowa 2010). Here, there is an
adequate record for us to decide Jefferson’s claims on direct appeal.
Jefferson maintains trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the
admission of evidence in violation of the ruling on the motion in limine.
Specifically, she contends counsel had a duty to object to the admission of the
audio recording from the interrogation because it contained evidence of prior bad
2
We consider the federal and state constitutional provisions “as congruent” for purposes
of appeal when the appellant provides no argument they should be applied differently.
State v. Clark, 814 N.W.2d 551, 560 (Iowa 2012).
8
acts and Jefferson’s dislike of Kerry interfering in conversations about Native
American culture because the State had agreed not to seek to admit such
evidence.
We may consider the prejudice prong first. See Everett, 789 N.W.2d at
159 (“[B]ecause we can resolve this issue on the prejudice prong, we need not
determine whether the failure to [object] would . . . constitute a breach of an
essential duty.”). Two witnesses, Amber Navarro and Laurie Davenport, testified
that Jefferson confessed to them. Both testified that Jefferson told them she
stabbed Kerry twice in the neck. Amber testified that Jefferson had blood on her
hands and she transferred some of that blood onto Amber’s t-shirt when Amber
tried to help her stand. Tests run by DCI confirmed the substance on Jefferson’s
clothes matched Kerry’s blood and DNA. Although Jefferson did not testify at
trial, when she was interrogated by police, she denied she had entered Carlos’
home again after she left with Dustin and Sahara sometime before 1 p.m., but
she had no explanation for how Kerry’s blood came to be on her clothing.
Even if the State violated the parties’ agreement by admitting the
unredacted audio of Jefferson’s interview with police and defense counsel should
have objected, our confidence in the outcome is not undermined. Jefferson has
not shown “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). Jefferson’s confession to
two individuals and the victim’s blood on her clothing constitute powerful
evidence. Thus, Jefferson’s claim of ineffective assistance fails.
AFFIRMED.