Background
After an argument outside a Des Moines bar, Andrew Harris drove away, returned about seven minutes later, approached Tyrell Grimes and Allen Matthews, and fired two shots that killed Grimes. Harris fled, discarded the gun, and later told a friend he had shot someone who had disrespected him. Police found ammunition matching the spent casings and an empty gun box at Harris’s residence.
Harris was initially convicted of first-degree murder, but the district court granted him a new trial. The State then consolidated the retrial with charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm and going armed with intent. At the second trial, the court admitted Matthews’s testimony from the first trial after finding him unavailable, declined to instruct on necessity, and limited defense psychologist Dr. Christina Pietz’s testimony about alleged threats by Grimes. The jury convicted Harris of second-degree murder and both firearm offenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. Harris did not preserve his claim that the jury should have received a necessity instruction on the murder charge because his instruction objection at the close of evidence addressed only firearm possession. As to the preserved firearm-possession claim, the court held that no necessity instruction was warranted: Harris had left the scene after the alleged threat, returned several minutes later, and therefore faced no immediate emergency or imminent harm without other options.
The court also held that the State made diligent, good-faith efforts to secure Matthews’s attendance, including interstate law-enforcement assistance, calls, social-media outreach, contacts with associates, and a material-witness warrant. Matthews was therefore unavailable, and his prior testimony was admissible because Harris had previously cross-examined him. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in limiting Dr. Pietz’s recitation of alleged threats: she could testify that Harris felt threatened, and Harris himself testified to the statements’ contents, making any further exclusion harmless.
Key Takeaways
- A necessity defense requires evidence of an immediate emergency and no reasonable alternative; a defendant who leaves and later returns generally cannot establish imminence.
- Former testimony may be used when the State makes reasonable, good-faith efforts to locate an absent witness and the defendant previously had a similar opportunity to cross-examine that witness.
- Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.703, otherwise inadmissible facts supporting an expert opinion may be disclosed only when their probative value substantially outweighs prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a defendant must make a specific, timely instruction objection to preserve a theory for appellate review. It also illustrates the practical showing needed to establish a witness’s unavailability when a retrial follows an earlier proceeding.