State of Iowa v. Demetrice De’Angelo Tompkins

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviews Demetrice Tompkins’s conviction for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court holds that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to testimony concerning the complaining witness’s out-of-court statements because the witness was available for cross-examination. The court finds the record insufficient to resolve whether counsel should have objected to unsolicited hearsay testimony concerning another witness’s statement, vacates the court of appeals’ decision, and affirms the district court judgment.

Holdings

1. Trial counsel was not ineffective because a Confrontation Clause objection would have been meritless. A.H. testified under oath, was available for cross-examination, remained subject to recall, and Tompkins could have examined her concerning the statements after they were admitted through Officer Jurgensen.
2. The record was insufficient on direct appeal to determine whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to and move to strike the officer’s testimony that another witness said Tompkins pushed A.H. The claim was not resolved on the merits and may be raised in postconviction proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object on Confrontation Clause grounds to Officer Jurgensen’s testimony concerning A.H.’s out-of-court statements.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to and move to strike as hearsay Officer Jurgensen’s unsolicited testimony concerning another witness’s out-of-court statement.
3. Whether the cumulative effect of the alleged deficiencies prejudiced Tompkins.

Disposition

vacated