## Facts

- Police responded to a 911 call shortly before 2:00 a.m. on July 19, 2009, at Denise Frei’s home in Marengo, Iowa, and found her on the porch with blood on her shirt and hands.
- Inside, Curtis Bailey (Frei’s longtime boyfriend) was dead on the living-room floor from severe blunt-force trauma.
- Frei initially told officers Bailey died during “a drug deal gone bad” while she was upstairs, then later admitted she killed him with help from her 18-year-old son and his girlfriend.
- The State charged Frei with first-degree murder.
- At trial, Frei asserted (1) justification/self-defense supported by evidence of battered women’s syndrome and (2) insanity based on mental-health diagnoses including depression and an anxiety disorder.
- The trial court instructed that self-defense required both an actual belief in danger and a belief that was reasonable under the circumstances.
- The court instructed that Frei bore the burden to prove insanity.
- The court gave a reasonable-doubt instruction stating jurors had no reasonable doubt if, after full and fair consideration of the evidence, they were “firmly convinced” of guilt.
- During opening statements, the prosecutor violated a ruling in limine; Frei moved for a mistrial, which the trial court denied.
- The jury convicted Frei of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the justification/self-defense instruction erroneously required an objectively reasonable belief in the need for force, particularly in light of battered women’s syndrome evidence.
2. Whether due process was violated by instructing that the defendant bears the burden of proving the insanity defense.
3. Whether the “firmly convinced” reasonable-doubt instruction diluted the State’s burden of proof.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after the prosecutor violated a ruling in limine during opening statements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the justification instruction properly required both subjective fear and objective reasonableness and correctly guided the jury; battered women’s syndrome evidence could inform reasonableness but did not eliminate the objective component.
- The court held Iowa law properly places the burden of proving insanity on the defendant and that this allocation did not violate due process.
- The court held the “firmly convinced” reasonable-doubt instruction satisfied due process and was an accepted articulation of the reasonable-doubt standard.
- The court held the denial of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion because the prosecutor’s improper remark did not create prejudice sufficient to deprive Frei of a fair trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Iowa self-defense law, justification requires both an actual belief in imminent danger and a belief that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
- Evidence of battered women’s syndrome may be considered in assessing what is reasonable in the defendant’s situation, but it does not convert self-defense into a purely subjective standard.
- Iowa may place on the defendant the burden to prove the insanity defense without violating due process, consistent with statute and precedent.
- A reasonable-doubt instruction using “firmly convinced” language can satisfy constitutional due process requirements.
- A mistrial is an exceptional remedy; a violation of an in limine ruling warrants reversal only if it results in prejudice that denies the defendant a fair trial, reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld Frei’s first-degree murder conviction, concluding the jury instructions correctly stated Iowa law on justification and insanity, the “firmly convinced” reasonable-doubt formulation met due process, and the prosecutor’s opening-statement misstep did not warrant a mistrial absent substantial prejudice.


State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70 (Iowa 2013)