Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Iowa

December 6, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JASON JEROME WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen, Judge.

         A defendant appeals the court's decision to admit into evidence a 911 tape of the victim over his Confrontation Clause objection.

          Stuart G. Hoover of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Scott, S.J. [*]

          SCOTT, Senior Judge.

         Following a bench trial, Jason Williams appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm as a felon, operating while barred as a habitual offender, and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.[1] See Iowa Code §§ 321.560, 321.561, 708.2A(2)(b), 724.26(1) (2015). He asserts on appeal the district court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by admitting the entire recording of the 911 phone call the victim made on the morning of the incident. Because we conclude the admission of the recording did not violate the Confrontation Clause, we affirm his conviction.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

         At approximately 8:00 a.m. on October 31, 2015, Williams arrived at the home of Patricia Schultz.[2] When his key failed to open the door, Williams began banging on the doors and windows, attempting to wake up Schultz to let him in. Awakened, Schultz dialed 911 to report that Williams was at the house and that he was not supposed to be there. As Williams banged on the window, he saw Schultz inside with another man. Williams then pushed in the window and climbed inside. He assaulted Schultz and pointed a gun at the other man before leaving the house.

         Prior to trial, Williams filed a motion in limine, seeking to exclude the recording of Schultz's 911 call on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds. On the morning of trial, the district court overruled the objection to the admission of the 911 recording and concluded the evidence was properly admitted as it fit within multiple exceptions to the hearsay rule. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(1), (2), (6) (outlining the present-sense-impression, excited-utterance, and business-record hearsay exceptions). Schultz did not testify at trial, but the other man present in her house the morning of the incident did testify, as did Williams. The court found Williams guilty on three of the charges filed against him, and Williams was sentenced to a total of five years in prison, with credit for time served.

         II. Scope and Standard of Review.

         Our standard of review is de novo for claims involving a violation of the defendant's right to confront his accuser. State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630, 633 (Iowa 2008).

         III. Confrontation Clause.

         Williams asserts his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when Schultz's 911 recording was admitted into evidence in its entirety.[3] The Confrontation Clause gives the defendant the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend VI. "[T]his provision bars 'admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless [the witness] was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.'" Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006) (citation omitted). Schultz did not appear for trial, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.