The Iowa City Press Citizen noted Moore v. State, which upheld the conviction of Wesley Todd Moore in the 1999 strangulation of Michael Krohn. The facts of the case were set out in a 2002 Court of Appeals decision posted here:
On the evening of May 29, 1999, Michael Krohn struck up a conversation with Wesley Moore and Shawn Weese at the Deadwood Bar in Iowa City. Later that evening, Krohn suggested they go to a different bar. While en route, Krohn stopped at his apartment to pick up some money. Moore and Weese accompanied him to the apartment, where the three drank shots of whisky. Moore then produced some pills and insisted that Krohn take one. Krohn refused, which angered Moore. Moore then stood in front of Krohn and told him he “was going to have to die.” Krohn started to stand up, but Moore punched him in the face and began choking him. Moore then told Weese to rip the phone out of the wall, which he did. Moore continued to strangle Krohn for twenty to thirty seconds and Krohn eventually lost consciousness. He awoke sometime later lying on the floor and heard Weese say “he’s getting up.” Moore then said, “tighten that towel around his neck” and Krohn felt a knee in the small of his back and a towel tightening around his neck. He again lost consciousness. When Krohn regained consciousness for the second time, he ran to a neighbor’s apartment and called police. He passed out again at the neighbor’s apartment.
The current appeal involved an allegation that Weese would testify that: 1) Moore had taken a whole bunch of drugs and alcohol (negating the specific intent to kill); 2) Krohn was up an conscious at the time that they left him (making it less likely Moore really thought he was going to die). Moore wanted the Court to consider this as "newly discovered evidence" to prompt a new trial.
The problem? The evidence was generally known before, only Weese wouldn't testify because he had his own case pending at the time. That meant it was not "newly discovered evidence" sufficient to grant a new trial in Iowa. The test as outlined by the court: (1) was discovered after the verdict, (2) could not have been earlier discovered in the exercise of due diligence, (3) was material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) probably would have changed the results of the trial. Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003).
Moore raised several other minor issues, all along the same theme - the jury didn't really realize how drunk Moore was at the time of the attack, nor did they realize how Krohn was up and concious when Moore left the apartment. If they had known that, and correlated it with the fact that Moore was an EMT, they couldn't possibly have found the specific intent to kill. The Court addressed these points at length, but I think the response is best summed up in this sentence:
"Even if we assume that Moore did not have the specific intent to kill Krohn when he left the apartment, the record is replete with evidence from which the jury could have concluded that, at the time of the attack, Moore did possess the specific intent to cause Krohn’s death. This is all that is required to support a finding of the specific intent to kill."
No comments:
Post a Comment