## Facts

- Des Moines police received a report of a methamphetamine lab at a home where Brett Preston Dullard lived with his mother.
- Dullard’s mother consented to a search of the residence and a detached garage.
- In the house, officers found a baggie of white powder in a bedroom ceiling (not a controlled substance, but suitable as a cutting agent) and a police scanner.
- In the garage, officers found items associated with methamphetamine manufacture, including starting fluid, solvents, containers, metal cylinders with fittings showing corrosion consistent with anhydrous ammonia, and unopened boxes of Benadryl containing pseudoephedrine.
- In a wooden desk in the garage, officers found a spiral notebook containing a handwritten note authored by an unidentified person and addressed to “B,” describing a black-and-white police car and suggesting the writer was nervous and observing police presence.
- The State used the note to argue that “B” referred to Dullard and that the note linked him to the garage items and showed awareness of possible police surveillance.
- Dullard was charged with possession of ephedrine/pseudoephedrine with intent to use it as a precursor to manufacture methamphetamine and with a separate ether-related offense.
- The jury convicted Dullard of the pseudoephedrine-precursor charge and acquitted him of the ether charge.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting, over hearsay objection, a handwritten note by an unidentified author found in the garage.
2. Whether the conviction could stand given the role of the note in proving constructive possession and knowledge, including the appropriate remedy on appeal.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court held the handwritten note was inadmissible hearsay.
- The court rejected the State’s claim that the note was offered only to show “relationship” or “context,” concluding its probative value depended on implied assertions and the declarant’s belief.
- The court found no applicable exemption or exception, including the co-conspirator statement exemption, due to insufficient independent evidence of a conspiracy involving Dullard.
- The court concluded the erroneous admission was prejudicial because the note was central to the State’s proof connecting Dullard to the garage contents and establishing knowledge.
- The court vacated the court of appeals decision, reversed the judgment and sentence, and remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A statement is hearsay when its probative value depends on the truth of what the declarant asserted or implied, even if offered under a “context” or “relationship” theory.
- Anonymous or unidentified out-of-court statements raise heightened reliability concerns because the declarant cannot be examined.
- The co-conspirator statement exemption requires adequate independent evidence establishing the foundational elements of a conspiracy and that the statement furthered it.
- Reversal for prejudicial evidentiary error generally results in a new trial; it differs from reversal for legally insufficient evidence, which bars retrial.

## Conclusion

The court held that an unidentified handwritten note used to connect Dullard to methamphetamine precursors was inadmissible hearsay and that its admission likely affected the verdict, requiring reversal and a remand for a new trial rather than dismissal for insufficient evidence.


State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2003)