State of Iowa v. Jose Eduardo Victor

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: June 19, 2024
• Docket: 22-1587
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1587 Filed June 19, 2024

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOSE EDUARDO VICTOR, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his convictions for eluding, driving while revoked, and

leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident. AFFIRMED.

Joel E. Fenton of Law Offices of Joel E. Fenton, PLC, Des Moines, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ. 2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

Jose Victor appeals three jury verdicts stemming from his high-speed

evasion of law enforcement. He alleges the prosecution—having more information

about prospective jurors—enjoyed an unfair advantage during voir dire. Because

Victor did not raise this issue until his motion for new trial, he failed to preserve

error. We thus affirm without reaching the merits of his allegation.

One morning in April 2022, a Marshalltown police officer saw Victor driving

his Chrysler 300—with no license plates—through a residential neighborhood.

The officer also knew that Victor’s driver’s license had been revoked. When the

officer signaled for him to stop, he sped away, reaching a speed of over one

hundred miles per hour. As he eluded the officer, Victor struck a pick-up truck at

an intersection. The truck driver suffered injuries. Victor left the scene before the

police arrived.

The State charged Victor with eluding resulting in injury, driving while his

license was revoked, and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in injury. His

case came to trial in July 2022. During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised

peremptory strikes on two Black prospective jurors. The court, on its own, asked

the prosecutor to make a record under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).

The prosecutor told the court that she exercised those strikes based, in part, on

information from conversations with law enforcement and other attorneys in her

office that raised concerns about those two prospective jurors. Defense counsel

responded that he lacked access to the same research on the two individuals, but

“had no reason to doubt” the State’s information. Defense counsel also 3

acknowledged the State’s reasons for striking them were “race neutral.” The court

agreed. The jury convicted him as charged.

For the first time, in his motion for new trial, Victor objected to not having

access to the same information that the State used in striking the two Black jurors.

He compared the situation to State v. Bessenecker, 404 N.W.2d 134, 138 (Iowa

1987), in which our supreme court stressed that defendants should have “equal

access to jurors’ rap sheets obtained by the county attorney.” The State resisted,

distinguishing Bessenecker and arguing that here it properly relied on “the

collective knowledge of the prosecutors and staff in our office.” In overruling

Victor’s new trial motion, the district court noted: “We certainly didn’t litigate the

issue that was mentioned in the Bessenecker case at the time of the trial in this

case so the court accepts and continues to accept the State’s reasons given for

striking those jurors.”

On appeal, Victor argues that the State was “obligated to share information

with the defendant’s counsel at voir dire regarding prosecution or staff awareness

of information concerning a prospective juror’s interactions with law enforcement

which did not lead to criminal charges.” In response, the State contends that by

waiting to object until after the verdict, Victor failed to preserve error. It also notes

that Victor’s brief “lacks an error preservation section” in violation of Iowa Rule of

Appellate Procedure 6.903(2).1

We agree that Victor failed to preserve error. “The grounds of a motion for

new trial must stand or fall on exceptions taken at trial and a party cannot in a post

1 Because Victor did not file a reply brief, the State’s error preservation argument

is uncontested. 4

verdict motion amplify or add new grounds as a basis for relief.” State v. Droste,

232 N.W.2d 483, 488 (Iowa 1975). Rather, objections to the jury-selection process

must be raised before the venire is dismissed and the jury is sworn. State v. Ford,

992 N.W.2d 641, 645–47 (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). What’s more, when Victor did raise

this issue in his motion for new trial, he did not receive a ruling on the merits from

the district court. “Thus, we have nothing to review.” See Cobbins v. State, No.

23-0356, 2024 WL 960362, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2024).

AFFIRMED.