State of Iowa v. Cynthia Renee Scalise

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed Cynthia Renee Scalise’s conviction for possession of more than five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The court rejected her ineffective-assistance claims concerning the motion for judgment of acquittal and jury instructions, while preserving for postconviction proceedings her claim that counsel inadequately explained the potential penalty. The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard to Scalise’s motion for a new trial, affirmed the conviction and sentence, reversed the ruling on the new-trial motion, and remanded.

Holdings

1. Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) requires the State to prove that the defendant possessed with intent to deliver the specified statutory amount of controlled substance.
2. Scalise failed to establish prejudice because substantial evidence supported a finding that she intended to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine.
3. The instructions and special interrogatory, read together, adequately required the jury to determine both the amount of methamphetamine Scalise possessed and her intent to deliver that amount.
4. The claim that counsel failed to adequately explain the penalty was preserved for a postconviction relief action because the direct-appeal record was inadequate.
5. On a motion for a new trial asserting that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, the district court must independently weigh the evidence and consider witness credibility; it may not merely determine whether substantial evidence supports the verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to specifically argue in the motion for judgment of acquittal that the State had to prove Scalise intended to deliver more than five grams of methamphetamine.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object that the jury instructions and special interrogatory did not require the State to prove intent to deliver the specified statutory amount.
3. Whether Scalise's claim that counsel inadequately explained the penalty should be resolved on direct appeal or preserved for postconviction relief.
4. Whether the district court applied the correct standard in denying Scalise's motion for a new trial based on a verdict contrary to the evidence.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded