IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0898
Filed August 1, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RYAN LEE STOCKBAUER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
possession of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.
Thomas A. Hurd of Glazebrook & Hurd, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
A jury found Ryan Stockbauer guilty of operating while intoxicated (OWI)
and possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Stockbauer contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial error or
misconduct in the form of (1) voir dire questions, (2) opening and closing
statements, and (3) photographic exhibits—all intended to “inflame the passions”
of the jurors. Because the record is not adequate to decide whether counsel
followed a reasonable strategy in not objecting, we affirm the convictions but
preserve Stockbauer’s ineffective-assistance claims for possible postconviction-
relief proceedings.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
In the early morning hours of August 3, 2016, Des Moines police
investigated the crash of a pickup truck into a tree at a T intersection. When Officer
Lucas Kramer arrived, he saw Ryan Stockbauer crawling out of the driver-side
window. Two other passengers suffered injuries requiring attention at the hospital.
Officer Kramer testified the heavy front-end damage to the truck was “consistent
with a high speed of travel.” In his brief conversation with Stockbauer, the officer
detected signs of intoxication, including unsteady balance, the smell of alcoholic
beverages, and bloodshot watery eyes.1 The officer asked how much Stockbauer
had to drink, and Stockbauer answered, “I’m alright.” The officer repeated the
question, and Stockbauer replied, “A beer or something.”
1
At the scene, the officer did not realize Stockbauer had one prosthetic eye but testified
at trial that Stockbauer’s natural eye was bloodshot and watery.
3
Stockbauer told a second officer, Benjamin Ihde, the truck had bad brakes.
During their conversation, Stockbauer denied consuming alcohol, but Officer Ihde
noticed Stockbauer had slurred speech and was “swaying in his stance.” The
officer conducted the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) field sobriety test and
observed two out of six indicators of intoxication.2 Stockbauer refused a
preliminary breath test. The officer did not perform any additional field sobriety
tests because Stockbauer began complaining of injuries. Officer Ihde transported
Stockbauer to the hospital where a nurse discovered a small baggie containing
methamphetamine concealed in the waistband of Stockbauer’s underwear. The
officer then read Stockbauer the implied consent advisory, and Stockbauer refused
to submit to chemical testing.
The State charged Stockbauer with possession of a controlled substance
and OWI. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Stockbauer points to several actions
by the State during trial that he now deems objectionable. First, the assistant
county attorney probed potential jurors about their “personal experience, either
yourself or a loved one,” with controlled substances. In response, several potential
jurors discussed the devastating effect methamphetamine has had on their lives
and families. Second, during the State’s opening statement, the assistant county
attorney spent time describing the passengers’ injuries, saying the female
passenger appeared to be “in dire straits” before she was “rushed” to the hospital.
Third, the State offered sixteen photographs of the crash scene, some showing the
truck’s deployed airbags and blood-stained seats. Fourth, in closing argument, the
2
The officer testified field-sobriety training manuals do not address whether the HGN
should be administered differently for a person with only one eye.
4
assistant county attorney returned to a photographic exhibit depicting the crash
scene, telling the jurors:
There’s the house. There’s the tree. This is a residential
neighborhood that this defendant ended up crashing in. It’s at night.
People are at home. Kids are in bed. Adults are in bed. Otherwise
good citizens who are sleeping before they go to work in the morning
or resting and minding their own business.
The jury found Stockbauer guilty on both counts. He now appeals, contending his
trial attorney was ineffective in not lodging objections to the prosecutor’s attempts
to arouse the passions of the jurors.3
II. Analysis
Stockbauer complains his attorney should have objected to several
instances of prosecutorial error or misconduct.4 Assuming without deciding the
prosecutor’s actions—either separately or cumulatively—could be viewed as error
or misconduct, we believe Stockbauer’s complaints would be better settled through
postconviction relief (PCR).5 We ordinarily reserve ineffective-assistance claims
for PCR proceedings so the parties may develop the record. See State v.
3
We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo. See State v. Henderson,
908 N.W.2d 868, 874 (Iowa 2018). To prevail, Stockbauer must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that counsel breached an essential duty resulting in actual prejudice. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
4
Our supreme court recently drew a distinction between misconduct and less egregious
missteps by a prosecutor. State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380, 394 (Iowa 2016).
Prosecutorial misconduct means an intentional violation of “a clear and unambiguous
obligation or standard imposed by law, applicable rule or professional conduct,” as well as
reckless disregard of a duty to comply with an obligation or standard. Id. (citation omitted).
Prosecutorial error covers instances of “poor judgment,” “mistake,” and “excusable human
error, despite the use of reasonable care.” Id. (citation omitted).
5
The State argues Stockbauer cannot show Strickland prejudice because the evidence of
his guilt was overwhelming. While the State offered substantial evidence Stockbauer was
driving the truck while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, with abbreviated field
sobriety testing and no chemical testing, we cannot find the evidence was so strong as to
preclude a finding of prejudice.
5
Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2015). We will resolve the claims on direct
appeal only when the record is adequate. Id.
Here Stockbauer’s trial counsel should be given the chance to explain the
failure to object to the prosecutor’s voir dire questions, the opening statement, the
proffer of multiple accident-scene photographs, and the closing arguments.
“There are potential strategic considerations in not lodging an objection, such as a
desire to avoid drawing the jury’s attention to a particular remark or line of
questioning.” See State v. Houston, No. 16-2155, 2018 WL 1099085, at *5 (Iowa
Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018). Because we find the record inadequate to address
Stockbauer’s claims, we preserve them for possible PCR proceedings. See id.
AFFIRMED.