State of Iowa v. Tyrell Jarule Gaston

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 23-0084
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0084 Filed April 24, 2024

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TYRELL JARULE GASTON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, David M. Cox, Judge.

A defendant appeals his criminal convictions, claiming evidentiary error.

AFFIRMED.

Raya Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

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

BADDING, Judge.

Many litigants view the requirement to preserve error for appeal as an

unnecessary technicality or a trap used by appellate courts to avoid deciding

appeals on the merits. See Thomas A. Mayes & Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Error

Preservation in Civil Appeals in Iowa: Perspectives on Present Practice, 55 Drake

L. Rev. 39, 42 (2006). Not true. Rather, “[i]mportant policies underlie error

preservation rules,” id., which is why the requirement that issues “be both raised

and decided by the district court before we decide them on appeal” is “a

fundamental doctrine of appellate review.” State v. Trane, 984 N.W.2d 429, 434–

35 (Iowa 2023) (citation omitted). After all, appellate courts are courts “of review,

not of first view.” State v. Hanes, 981 N.W.2d 454, 460 (Iowa 2022) (citation

omitted).

In this case—which should serve as a good reminder about the importance

of preserving error—Tyrell Gaston was convicted for assault with intent to cause

serious injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, and going armed with intent.

At the end of the second day of trial, the State alerted the trial court that it wanted

to admit sworn testimony a witness gave in Gaston’s co-defendant’s trial. The

prosecutor noted, however, that she would need to do some research that evening

on whether it would be permissible. When asked for Gaston’s position on the

issue, defense counsel said: “I don’t think we resist it.” The court later noted: “[I]f

there’s no objection to it coming in, that at least makes my job easier for not having

to do the research.” Defense counsel responded: “I don’t think—yeah, we don’t

object.” Then the court declared: “Okay. So with that, then, we’ll allow it in.” The

following morning, the court confirmed with the parties that “there was no objection 3

by the Defendant to having this transcript read into the record.” The witness’s

testimony from the co-defendant’s trial was then read to the jury without objection.

Now, on appeal, Gaston claims the prior testimony of the unavailable

witness was improperly admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to

confrontation. Gaston claims the above “conversation” among the parties and

court was “sufficient to convey the potential error to the court, therefore, the issue

was preserved on appeal.” The State, of course, contests error preservation.

Because Gaston consented to the admission of the evidence and did not otherwise

raise the claim he makes on appeal, we agree with the State that error was not

preserved and affirm without further opinion. See Jasper v. State, 477

N.W.2d 852, 856 (Iowa 1991) (noting a litigant “cannot deliberately act so as to

invite error and then object because the court has accepted the invitation”); State

v. Schmidt, 312 N.W.2d 517, 518 (Iowa 1981) (finding an evidentiary challenge

waived and not preserved for appeal where defense counsel “affirmatively stated—

twice—that he had no objection to the very evidence whose admission he now

says amounts to reversible error”); see also Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 309,

322 (Iowa 2013) (“Even issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented

to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for appeal.”).