State of Iowa
v.
Dreasean Maurice Barber
Appellee
State of Iowa
Appellant
Dreasean Maurice Barber
Attorney for the Appellee
Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for the Appellant
Andrew Dunn and Gina Messamer
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (21 pages)
Dresean Barber appeals his convictions to one count of second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to inflict serious injury. Barber challenges the district court’s denial of his request to present a defense based upon a statute amended after he was arrested and charged. He also challenges the court’s denial of his motion for mistrial or alternatively its refusal to voir dire the jury after a mass shooting occurred in Las Vegas during jury deliberations. Barber further contends the court abused its discretion in failing to clear the jury’s confusion on malice aforethought. Barber also claims the prosecutor’s questioning during cross-examination constituted prosecutorial misconduct. Lastly, Barber contends the jury’s verdicts were not supported by substantial evidence. OPINION HOLDS: The 2017 amendments to the justification defense at issue in this case were prospective, not retrospective, as the statutes were expressly made retrospective and were substantive in nature. As such, Barber was not entitled to argue or have the court instruct the jury based upon the amendments to the Iowa Code. Barber was still allowed to assert and argue a justification defense as defined by statute prior to the 2017 amendments, and the jury instructions properly informed the jury of the law on justification in effect at the time of the shooting. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to poll the jury or grant a mistrial based upon the Las Vegas shooting. The district court also did not abuse its discretion when responding to the jury’s question with directions to reread the instructions. We find no prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, we find the verdicts are supported by substantial evidence.
