State of Iowa
v.
Gregory Michael Davis
Gregory Davis seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion affirming Davis’s conviction for first-degree murder and holding his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for failing to object to the marshaling instruction for first-degree murder, which did not include a reference to his insanity defense.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Gregory Michael Davis
Attorney for the Resister
Louis S. Sloven
Attorneys for the Applicant
Alfredo Parrish
Andrew Dunn
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Oct 14, 2020 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Sean W. McPartland, Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Ahlers, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. Dissent by Ahlers, J. (26 pages)
Gregory Davis appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, raising challenges to the jury instructions and the competence of his trial counsel. Davis challenges (1) the marshaling instruction for first-degree murder; (2) the intoxication instruction; (3) the reference to diminished capacity in the marshaling instructions for general-intent lesser-included offenses; (4) the effectiveness of his counsel in questioning one of the experts on Davis’s intent; and (5) the cumulative effect of these alleged errors. OPINION HOLDS: We find Davis failed to preserve error on claims (1) and (3), but even so, these claims fail. We find no error in the district court’s giving of an intoxication instruction. We preserve claim (4) for a possible postconviction-relief application. Given our rulings on claims (1)–(4), we find claim (5) without merit. We affirm Davis’s conviction. DISSENT ASSERTS: Failing to include a cross-reference to defenses in the marshaling instruction for the first-degree murder charge while including the cross-reference in the marshaling instructions for all lesser-included charges created confusing and misleading instructions. Trial counsel’s failure to object was deficient performance that resulted in prejudice to Davis and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Davis should receive a new trial as a result.