## Facts

- Gregory Irvin Nelson rented a room in his sister Georgia Stigler’s home, where Georgia lived with her husband, Reuben Stigler, and her child.
- On February 26, 1981, Nelson returned home and found several guns, $1,000, and other items missing, and reported the theft to Georgia.
- Georgia confronted Reuben and stated the theft would be reported to police if the property was not returned by morning.
- Reuben and a friend, Russell Hill, went to a tavern and recovered three guns, then returned to the home.
- The State’s evidence showed that when Reuben and Hill entered, they were held at gunpoint by Nelson, Georgia, and others.
- Reuben and Hill were restrained for hours while telephone calls were made to recover additional items.
- Reuben and Hill escaped, with Reuben exiting through a closed window and Hill leaving through a rear door.
- Nelson was charged and convicted of false imprisonment under Iowa Code § 710.7 (1981).

## Issues

1. Whether Nelson preserved error on his claim that admission of his non-testifying codefendant’s written confession violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing Nelson’s requested jury instruction on the justification defense of defense of property.
3. Whether Nelson’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim should be decided on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held Nelson failed to preserve error on the confrontation claim because trial counsel did not make a timely, specific objection on that ground.
- The court held the trial court correctly refused a defense-of-property instruction because the theft had already occurred and no qualifying criminal act against property was occurring in Nelson’s presence during the detention.
- The court held ineffective-assistance claims must be raised in postconviction proceedings, where an evidentiary record can be developed.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of constitutional claims requires preservation of error through a timely and specific objection at trial.
- Defense of property is a limited justification: the criminal act the defendant seeks to prevent or terminate must be committed in the defendant’s presence, and the force used must be reasonable and tied to preventing or ending the offense.
- Defense of property does not justify prolonged armed restraint used to pressure recovery of property after a theft has been completed.
- Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are generally reserved for postconviction relief proceedings when the trial record is inadequate to resolve the claim.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Nelson’s false-imprisonment conviction because he did not properly preserve a confrontation objection to his codefendant’s confession, the evidence did not support a defense-of-property instruction for the hours-long detention at gunpoint after the theft was complete, and any ineffective-assistance claim had to be pursued in postconviction relief.


State v. Nelson, 329 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1983)