State of Iowa v. James Donald Lane

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa held that James Donald Lane's statements made while in police custody did not establish a reasonable expectation of the imminent commission of terrorism under Iowa Code section 708A.5. The court reversed his threat-of-terrorism conviction for insufficient evidence but affirmed his intimidation-with-a-dangerous-weapon conviction, concluding that sufficient evidence supported submission of that charge to the jury and that counsel's failure to request an objective-standard jury instruction was not prejudicial.

Holdings

1. A threat-of-terrorism conviction under Iowa Code section 708A.5 requires sufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation or fear that the terrorist act will be committed imminently. Because Lane was in custody and could not reasonably be expected to carry out the threats until at least the next day, the evidence was insufficient and the district court erred in denying judgment of acquittal.
2. The evidence was sufficient to submit the intimidation-with-a-dangerous-weapon charge to the jury because the statute does not require an imminent threat; it requires circumstances raising a reasonable expectation that the threat will be carried out.
3. Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to articulate grounds for judgment of acquittal on the intimidation charge because the State presented sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether the threats would be carried out.
4. Lane was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to request an instruction expressly stating that the reasonable-expectation element must be evaluated under an objective reasonable-person standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that Lane caused a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of an act of terrorism.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit the intimidation-with-a-dangerous-weapon charge to the jury.
3. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a specific sufficiency challenge to the intimidation charge.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an objective reasonable-person instruction concerning the reasonable-expectation element.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded