State v. Geddes

998 N.W.2d 166

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Robert Clark GEDDES, Appellant.

No. 22-1009

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted September 14, 2023

Filed December 1, 2023

Amended December 13, 2023

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.

The defendant appeals his convictions for trespass as a hate crime, arguing that the evidence of guilt was insufficient and that the convictions violated his constitutional rights of free speech and due process. Affirmed.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley C. Stewart (argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Aaron J. Rogers (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., Waterman, McDonald, Oxley, and May, JJ., joined. Waterman, J., filed a concurrence, in which Christensen, C.J., joined. McDermott, J., filed a dissent.

Mansfield, Justice.

I. Introduction.

In recent years, in our country, the rainbow flag has come to symbolize support for LGBTQ+ rights. Several individuals in Boone displayed that flag or a decal of it on the front of their properties. Another person entered their premises without permission and taped anonymous notes to the doors urging, "Burn that gay flag." This individual was later found out and convicted of trespass as a hate crime. See Iowa Code § 716.8(3) (2021). He now asserts on appeal that his conviction violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution. We disagree. The statute in question does not criminalize speech, but rather conduct with a specific intent—namely, trespassing on property because of the property owner or possessor’s association with persons of a certain sexual orientation. The individuals’ display of the LGBTQ+ flag or flag decal on their own properties was an exercise of First Amendment rights; the defendant’s surreptitious entry onto those properties to post his harassing notes was not. For these reasons, and because we are not persuaded by the defendant’s other appellate arguments that would require us to construe the hate crime statute implausibly or to overturn a soundly reasoned forty-year-old precedent, we affirm the defendant’s convictions and sentence.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

A. The June 2021 Notes and Resulting Charges. In June 2021, renters and homeowners who displayed LGBTQ+ Pride flags or decals in Boone began receiving handwritten notes taped on their front doors.

The first note, discovered on June 16 and shaped like a warning sign, said, "Warning due to high levels of flaggotry an investigation has been launched to control the spread of HIV/AIDS. We are sad to say the bare back orgy has been canceled. Burn that gay flag." The renters, who displayed an LGBTQ+ Pride flag or decal on their premises, contacted the Boone Chief of Police about the note and tiled a police report. They specifically asked for information on whether the Boone Police Department "keep[s] track of crimes against LGBTQ people within the City of Boone" and "how many incidents against LGBTQ people have been reported to the Boone Police so far in 2021 and in each of the past five years."

On June 19, four additional notes were located, omitting the opening words and stating simply, "Burn that gay flag." The notes had the same handwriting. The recipients reported that they found the notes to be "alarming, annoying, and/or threatening."

Video surveillance footage at some of the homes revealed a man approaching with a piece of paper in his hand and leaving a short time later. Based on the surveillance, Robert Geddes was identified as the individual. Geddes did not have prior permission to enter any of the five properties.

Geddes was initially charged by trial information with five counts of trespass as a hate crime, a serious misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.7 and 716.8(3), and by complaint with five counts of harassment in the third degree, a simple misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(4).

B. Trial on the Minutes and Conviction. Geddes moved to dismiss the charges on free-speech grounds, alleging violations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution. The State resisted, and the district court denied the motion, reasoning as to the trespass-as-a-hate-crime charge:

The statutes in question criminalize actions, specifically unlawful "entering[,]" which is enhanced due to a status of an owner or possessor’s membership or association in a class of protection, the statutes do not criminalize thoughts or words.

….

It is the defendant’s entering (or trespassing) that is criminalized to the level of a hate crime because of the statutorily protected status … or association of the owner or possessor of the property onto which the defendant trespassed. Again, his words may be relevant facts upon which the state may rely to prove his intent, but the thoughts from which they spring in defendant’s mind are not elements of the offenses under the statutes charged herein. Free speech protects the marketplace of ideas from government intrusion. Defendant’s ideas (however society chooses to judge them) are not infringed or criminalized by the statutes charged.

Thereafter, Geddes waived his right to a jury trial and agreed to a trial on the minutes; in return, the State dropped the simple misdemeanor harassment charges and agreed to recommend probation. The court found Geddes guilty on all counts. Geddes was sentenced to five consecutive one-year terms with credit for time served; the jail sentence was suspended and Geddes was placed on probation for a term not to exceed two years and fined the minimum amount. Geddes appealed, and we retained the appeal.

Geddes raises three points on appeal. First, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. In this regard, he contends that Iowa Code sections 716.7(2)(a), 716.8(3), and 729A.2(4) require a defendant to intend to commit a separate hate crime in addition to the underlying trespass. Also, Geddes maintains that the State failed to prove that he targeted persons of or associated with a certain sexual orientation. In addition to challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Geddes argues that his prosecution violated his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 7 of the Iowa Constitution. Finally, Geddes insists that Iowa Code section 716.7(2)(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

III. Standard of Review.

[1] "We review the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law." State v. Kelso-Christy, 911 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Iowa 2018). "Pursuant to this review, ‘we examine whether, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record.’" Id. (quoting State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 138 (Iowa 2011)).

[2] We review constitutional challenges de novo. State v. Aschbrenner, 926 N.W.2d 240, 245–46 (Iowa 2019).

IV. Legal Analysis.

A. Was the Evidence Sufficient to Find Geddes Guilty of Trespass as a Hate Crime? Geddes argues that the evidence was insufficient to find him guilty of trespass as a hate crime. Three statutes—Iowa Code sections 716.7(2)(a), 716.8(3), and 729A.2(4)—are relevant.

Iowa Code section 716.7(2)(a) sets forth the general definition of trespass. It defines trespass to mean one or more of a series of acts. Iowa Code § 716.7(2)(a). One of those acts is: "Entering upon or in property without the express permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession with the intent to commit a public offense, to use, remove therefrom, alter, damage, harass, or place thereon or therein anything animate or inanimate …." Id. § 716.7(2)(a)(1). Another of those acts is: "Being upon or in property and … placing thereon or therein anything animate or inanimate, without the implied or actual permission of the owner, lessee, or person in lawful possession." Id. § 716.7(2)(a)(4).¹

Section 716.8(3) is part of the hate crime law. It says that "[a] person who knowingly trespasses on the property of another with the intent to commit a hate crime, as defined in section 729A.2, commits a serious misdemeanor." Id. § 716.8(3).

And Iowa Code section 729A.2(4) is another part of the hate crime law. It defines a hate crime as follows:

"Hate crime" means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability:

1. Assault in violation of individual rights under section 708.2C.

2. Violations of individual rights under section 712.9.

3. Criminal mischief in violation of individual rights under section 716.6A.

4. Trespass in violation of individual rights under section 716.8, subsections 3 and 4.

Id. § 729A.2.

1. Does hate crime trespass require that the defendant hare the intent to commit a second trespass? Geddes’s initial argument is that the evidence to convict him was insufficient because the law quoted above requires a defendant to commit trespass and also to intend to commit a distinct hate crime (not the predicate trespass) in order to be found guilty.

[3] The State urges that Geddes did not preserve error on this issue. However, under Iowa law, a defendant need not file a motion for judgment of acquittal to preserve error on a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence during a bench trial. State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 197–98 (Iowa 2...