## Facts

- William Turk was killed by multiple skull fractures from a blunt instrument, repeatedly stabbed, and bound with electrical cord.
- Albert Leo Galvan was prosecuted for first-degree murder on an aiding-and-abetting theory, alleging he assisted Phillip and Mary Cuevas in the killing on October 5, 1977.
- Galvan and his then-wife, Jenny Perez, lived with their two daughters in West Des Moines.
- Around 10:00 p.m., Galvan received a phone call from Phillip Cuevas and left around 10:15 p.m., taking his two-year-old daughter with him, saying he was going to pick up Phillip and Mary at another house.
- Perez tried unsuccessfully to reach Galvan by phone during his approximately 45-minute absence.
- Galvan returned around 11:00 p.m. with the Cuevases, who went directly to the bathroom.
- While the Cuevases were in the bathroom, Galvan asked Perez for pants for Mary; Perez gave Mary a pair of green slacks.
- The Cuevases requested a paper sack, filled it with clothing, placed it outside, and applied lighter fluid; Perez later saw blood spots in the bathroom the Cuevases used.
- Over defense objection, Perez testified about the two-year-old’s post-crime behavior: two days after the killing the child bound her hands with a belt and made beating motions toward her chest, and about five months later cried during a cartoon depicting a tied-up mouse.
- The State offered the child-behavior evidence to imply the child witnessed the killing and was re-enacting or recalling it, thereby suggesting Galvan’s presence at the crime.

## Issues

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aiding and abetting first-degree murder.
2. Whether testimony describing a two-year-old’s post-crime conduct and later reaction to a television cartoon was inadmissible hearsay and unfairly prejudicial, requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was legally sufficient to permit a rational jury to find Galvan aided and abetted the murder.
- The court held the trial court erred by admitting testimony about the child’s conduct and later television reaction because it functioned as hearsay and did not fit a recognized exception.
- The error was prejudicial and not harmless because the evidence was non-cumulative and suggested Galvan’s presence at the crime.
- The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- In reviewing sufficiency, the evidence is viewed in the light most consistent with the verdict; circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence supporting conviction.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability may be proved by circumstantial proof from which a jury can infer knowing participation and assistance in the crime.
- Nonverbal conduct may be treated as hearsay when offered to prove the truth of an implied assertion (e.g., that the actor observed and is recounting a specific historical event), rather than merely as circumstantial evidence of state of mind.
- Remoteness in time can defeat characterization of conduct or reactions as spontaneous or part of the event for hearsay-exception purposes; a reaction occurring months after the crime is too remote to qualify.
- Admission of a highly suggestive, non-cumulative hearsay item that materially strengthens the inference connecting a defendant to the crime can constitute prejudicial error requiring a new trial.

## Conclusion

The court found the State presented substantial circumstantial evidence supporting an aiding-and-abetting first-degree murder conviction, but reversed and remanded because testimony about the defendant’s toddler’s post-crime behavior and later reaction was inadmissible hearsay, too remote to qualify for an exception, and unfairly prejudicial in implying the child witnessed the killing and the defendant was present.


State v. Galvan, 297 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1980)