Vern huser trial

Frei , N. We permit the district court broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a mistrial because it is in the best position to appraise the effect of any alleged misconduct.

In order to establish reversible error, Huser "must show the violation of the limine order resulted in prejudice that deprived [him] of a fair trial. We likewise review denials of motions for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct for abuse of discretion.

Greene , N. We review a court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion; however, we review claims evidence should or should not have been admitted based on hearsay grounds for correction of errors at law.

Paredes , N. Finally, we review the sufficiency of evidence for the correction of errors at law. Edouard , N. We consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will uphold a verdict if substantial record evidence supports it.

In the first appeal decision, we ordered a new trial based on the admission of hearsay from three different witnesses regarding statements Woolheater made before Morningstar's disappearance. Only the statement made by Patti Mitrisin, one of Woolheater's girlfriends, is at issue in this appeal. At the first trial, Mitrisin testified Woolheater told her that "there was a guy messing around with Vern's wife or ex-wife. We concluded this statement, along with testimony from two other witnesses conveying statements Woolheater made before Morningstar was killed, were improperly admitted hearsay statements.

In preparation for the new trial, the district court ruled Mitrisin's statement, along with the other statements we found improperly admitted, was inadmissible under the "law of the case" doctrine. See Russ v. Cereal Co. Neither party challenges the district court's pretrial ruling. Prior to Mitrisin's testimony at the new trial, the State and defense counsel met to confirm the questions that would be asked of Mitrisin.

Defense counsel agreed Mitrisin could testify as to Huser's identity as the person she saw Woolheater meet with prior to the murder, but it was defense counsel's understanding Mitrisin's testimony would go no further.

During the direct examination by the State, Mitrisin testified that she observed Woolheater meet with Huser at a storage building. The State then went on to ask:. I know it's been a long time, but do you remember when this interaction occurred? The best that I can remember would have to be the end of August or the first part of September.

I do have just a couple of quick questions. Now, without telling me what Mr. The judges said prosecutors presented a strong case for why Huser would want Morningside killed and presented evidence showing he had threatened the victim and may have knew about Morningside's death before his body was found. No comments:. Newer Post Older Post Home. Greene , N. We review a court's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion; however, we review claims evidence should or should not have been admitted based on hearsay grounds for correction of errors at law.

Paredes , N. Finally, we review the sufficiency of evidence for the correction of errors at law. Edouard , N. We consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will uphold a verdict if substantial record evidence supports it. In the first appeal decision, we ordered a new trial based on the admission of hearsay from three different witnesses regarding statements Woolheater made before Morningstar's disappearance.

Only the statement made by Patti Mitrisin, one of Woolheater's girlfriends, is at issue in this appeal. At the first trial, Mitrisin testified Woolheater told her that " there was a guy messing around with Vern's wife or ex-wife.

We concluded this statement, along with testimony from two other witnesses conveying statements Woolheater made before Morningstar was killed, were improperly admitted hearsay statements. In preparation for the new trial, the district court ruled Mitrisin's statement, along with the other statements we found improperly admitted, was inadmissible under the " law of the case" doctrine.

See Russ v. Cereal Co. Neither party challenges the district court's pretrial ruling. Prior to Mitrisin's testimony at the new trial, the State and defense counsel met to confirm the questions that would be asked of Mitrisin. Defense counsel agreed Mitrisin could testify as to Huser's identity as the person she saw Woolheater meet with prior to the murder, but it was defense counsel's understanding Mitrisin's testimony would go no further.

During the direct examination by the State, Mitrisin testified that she observed Woolheater meet with Huser at a storage building.

The State then went on to ask:. Could you observe their demeanor? Just like two men talking. I know it's been a long time, but do you remember when this interaction occurred? The best that I can remember would have to be the end of August or the first part of September. And that would be in the year ? I do have just a couple of quick questions. Now, without telling me what Mr. Woolheater said, did he ever speak of Lance Morningstar?

Appel wrote in the opinion that there was no "smoking gun" evidence implicating Huser in the plot, but that prosecutors had more than enough circumstantial evidence to convince jurors that he aided and abetted the killing.

Woolheater, who owned a gutter installation business, was convicted of first-degree murder in the killing in and is currently at the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison. Parrish said it usually takes approximately 15 days for a Supreme Court ruling to be processed down to the district court so that fresh litigation can begin. Parrish told the Register in that Huser had turned down an offer from prosecutors ahead of his second trial that would have allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser offense and receive a six-year prison sentence.

Iowa Supreme Court overturns Ankeny businessman's murder conviction.