State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Lavern Enderle

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedNovember 16, 2007
Docket79 / 03–2085
StatusPublished

This text of State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Lavern Enderle (State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Lavern Enderle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Lavern Enderle, (iowa 2007).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 79 / 03–2085

Filed November 16, 2007

STATE OF IOWA,

Appellee,

vs.

CHAD LAVERN ENDERLE,

Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, David E.

Schoenthaler and Mark J. Smith, Judges.

Defendant appeals from conviction for first-degree murder and

willful injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.2(1), 707.2(2), and

708.4(1) (2001). AFFIRMED.

Kent A. Simmons, Davenport, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant

Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Michael J.

Walton, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. 2

LARSON, Justice.

Chad Enderle was convicted of first-degree murder and willful

injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.2(1), 707.2(2), and 708.4(1)

(2001). He appealed, claiming numerous errors, including the court’s

denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a

material-witness warrant and denial of his motion for judgment of

acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings.

The defendant’s convictions arose out of the death of Gregory

Harris, whose body was found in Davenport, Iowa, on March 10, 2003.

Enderle became a person of interest to the police when they found his

cell phone number stored in the victim’s cell phone memory. When the

police contacted that number, the person answering denied he was

Enderle. Within minutes after the police called, Enderle had his

cell phone number changed. Believing Enderle would be uncooperative

and might become unavailable for questioning, the police obtained a

material-witness warrant pursuant to Iowa Code section 804.11.

Pursuant to that warrant, Enderle was arrested and questioned at the

police station.

II. The Ineffective-Assistance Claims.

Enderle’s counsel did not object to the admission of most of the evidence about which Enderle now complains, so he relies on ineffective-

assistance-of-counsel principles to raise the issue on appeal. A

defendant claiming ineffective assistance must prove (1) that counsel

failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) he was prejudiced by his

counsel’s errors. Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001).

To prove prejudice, a defendant must show a “reasonable probability

that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding 3

would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694,

104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 698 (1984). “A reasonable

probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the

outcome.” Id.

The defendant bears the burden of proving both elements by a

preponderance of the evidence, Ledezma, 626 N.W.2d at 141–42, but it is

not necessary that the court address both elements. If a defendant does

not show prejudice, the case can be decided on that issue alone without

the additional inquiry into whether counsel’s performance was deficient.

Id. at 142.

III. The Material-Witness Warrant.

Iowa Code section 804.11 provides, in pertinent part:

When a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a person is a necessary and material witness to a felony and that such person might be unavailable for service of a subpoena, the officer may arrest such person as a material witness with or without an arrest warrant.

We upheld the constitutionality of section 804.11 in State v. Hernandez-

Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Iowa 2002). In doing so, we acknowledged

that material-witness warrants “serve a vital and useful public purpose

in the prosecution of felony offenses,” and “are in widespread existence

throughout this country.” 639 N.W.2d at 236.

Section 804.11 requires that there be probable cause to believe (1)

a person is a necessary and material witness to a felony, and (2) such

person might be unavailable for service of a subpoena. In this case, the

application for the warrant stated:

On 3/10/03 the Davenport Police Dept. started a homicide investigation after finding the victim dead in his home at 326 W. 10th St. During the subsequent investigation detectives learned that Chad Enderle was involved with the victim, and visited him on a regular basis. 4 One witness saw an M/W subject matching Enderle’s description leaving the victim’s residence around the time the victim would have been killed. The Davenport Police Dept. has made several attempts at locating Enderle and talking with him about this case. Detectives reached Enderle on a cell phone he used, but that he put in his girlfriend’s name. Enderle lied about his name and told the Detective he didn’t know the victim and refused to talk to him. Since this conversation the cell phone has been shut off. Detectives obtained cell phone records and discovered Enderle called the victim’s residence 20 times over a very short period around the time the victim was killed. Again, on 03/18/03 Detectives tried to locate Enderle and were unable to. Detectives again went to Enderle’s residence and knocked on the door, and no one answered. Upon looking in a front window Detectives saw a female we believe is Enderle’s mother sitting in the living room only feet away from the front door. The female refused to come to the door.

We believe the material-witness warrant, based on this application, was

supported by probable cause to believe both that Enderle was “a

necessary and material witness to a felony” and “might be unavailable for

service of a subpoena,” as required by Iowa Code section 804.11.

Even if Enderle’s counsel breached a duty to challenge the

warrant, Enderle has failed to show he was prejudiced. Statements

made by Enderle during the questioning did not amount to a confession,

nor did they lead to other evidence of guilt. Enderle stated that the last

time he had seen Harris was on March 5, 2003, and possibly the

morning of March 6, 2003, the date the State claims the victim was

killed. This evidence was merely cumulative of other evidence that

placed Enderle at the victim’s home at about the time of death. See State

v. Lane, 726 N.W.2d 371, 383 n.2 (Iowa 2007) (“The independent source

doctrine removes the taint of a prior illegality if the police obtained the

same information or evidence through means independent of the illegal

conduct.”). 5

The strongest evidence of Enderle’s connection to the crime was

his fingerprints. Fingerprint samples were obtained from Enderle during

this questioning under the material-witness warrant. However, his

fingerprints could have been obtained, and ultimately were obtained,

under a nontestimonial identification application under Iowa Code

section 810.6. We conclude that Enderle was not prejudiced by his

furnishing of fingerprint examplars or statements about his being at the

victim’s residence because this evidence was merely cumulative.

Other issues are raised concerning Enderle’s interrogation under

the material-witness warrant: (1) he was intimidated and promised

leniency; (2) the videotaped interview contained a prejudicial statement

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Samson Dubria v. G.A. Smith, Warden
224 F.3d 995 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
State v. Myers
382 N.W.2d 91 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986)
Ledezma v. State
626 N.W.2d 134 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2001)
State v. Plaster
424 N.W.2d 226 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1988)
State v. Leckington
713 N.W.2d 208 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2006)
State v. Lane
726 N.W.2d 371 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2007)
State v. Hernandez-Lopez
639 N.W.2d 226 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2002)
State v. Demery
30 P.3d 1278 (Washington Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State Of Iowa Vs. Chad Lavern Enderle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-vs-chad-lavern-enderle-iowa-2007.