## Facts

- Bruce Pollard entered an adult movie theater (Cinema X) carrying a crowbar.
- Pollard struck the theater manager, McDaniel, in the head and strangled him with the crowbar.
- McDaniel was much older than Pollard and was unarmed.
- Pollard left the theater about twenty minutes later carrying a bag of merchandise.
- Pollard was charged with first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.
- Pollard admitted killing McDaniel but claimed he acted in self-defense (justification).
- Pollard asserted McDaniel sat close to him during a movie and made an unwanted sexual advance; Pollard told McDaniel it was inappropriate, felt something on his leg, and panicked.
- Pollard claimed he ran to the front door, found it locked, turned, and saw McDaniel behind him; Pollard then hit and strangled McDaniel with the crowbar.
- The district court instructed the jury on justification and reasonable force, including Iowa’s limitation that deadly force is not justified if a safe alternative course of action is available.
- Defense counsel did not request an additional instruction describing an exception to the alternative-course-of-action requirement.
- The jury rejected justification and found Pollard guilty of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.

## Issues

1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to instructions permitting first-degree robbery to serve as the predicate felony for first-degree felony murder.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an additional justification instruction explaining an exception to the alternative-course-of-action limitation, and whether any omission caused prejudice.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Pollard’s convictions for first-degree murder and first-degree robbery.
- The court rejected Pollard’s ineffective-assistance claim based on the felony-murder instructions, concluding counsel had no duty to make a meritless objection where the law allowed robbery as a predicate felony.
- The court rejected Pollard’s ineffective-assistance claim based on the justification instructions, concluding the instructions given adequately stated the governing rules and Pollard failed to show a reasonable probability of a different verdict with the requested additional language.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of (1) breach of an essential duty and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability that the result would have differed absent the error.
- Counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to an instruction that correctly states the law or for failing to raise a meritless claim.
- Jury instructions are sufficient when, taken as a whole, they fairly state the applicable law and allow the jury to consider the defense theory.
- Under Iowa justification law, deadly force is permitted only if the defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or injury and the force used was reasonable under the circumstances; the defense is limited when the defendant had a safe, reasonable alternative to using deadly force.
- A defendant claiming instructional error as ineffective assistance must show not just that different wording could have been given, but that the absence of the requested instruction likely affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed Pollard’s murder and robbery convictions because Pollard did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel: robbery could properly function as a predicate felony for felony murder, and the justification instructions given already allowed the jury to acquit if it accepted Pollard’s self-defense account, leaving no showing that any additional exception language would likely have changed the outcome.


State v. Pollard, 862 N.W.2d 414 (2015)