## Facts

- Richard Daughenbaugh was killed during a late-night group assault near the Des Moines River in August 2013.
- Yarvon Russell was present; the disputed question at trial was whether he actively participated in the beating or was merely in the crowd.
- A minor witness, T.T., initially told police (after being shown a Facebook photo) that Russell was one of the perpetrators and that she saw him kicking the victim.
- At trial, T.T. testified she did not remember the incident or who had been kicking the victim.
- Over objection, the State elicited testimony from the interviewing detective that T.T. had identified Russell during the interview as one of the people who kicked the victim.
- Another eyewitness, Monica Perkins, did not identify Russell in earlier statements but testified at trial that she saw Russell stomp on the victim’s head and that she physically intervened during the assault.
- Russell was tried jointly with two codefendants and convicted of second-degree murder; the court of appeals reversed for insufficient evidentiary support for a joint-criminal-conduct instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Russell’s second-degree murder conviction under principal or aiding-and-abetting liability, and whether any error in submitting a joint-criminal-conduct instruction required reversal.
2. Whether T.T.’s earlier unsworn out-of-court identification was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement when T.T. claimed lack of memory at trial.
3. Whether the detective’s testimony recounting T.T.’s identification was inadmissible hearsay or barred by confrontation principles.
4. Whether Perkins’s in-court identification improperly exceeded the scope of the minutes of testimony, and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object on that ground.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals decision and affirmed Russell’s second-degree murder conviction.
- The court held there was substantial evidence supporting guilt as a principal or aider and abettor, based primarily on Perkins’s in-court account and T.T.’s prior identification.
- Assuming any defect in submitting a joint-criminal-conduct instruction, the court concluded reversal was not warranted because the verdict was supported under other valid liability theories.
- The court upheld admission of T.T.’s prior identification through the detective as an admissible prior inconsistent statement after T.T. claimed memory loss at trial.
- The court rejected hearsay and confrontation challenges because T.T. testified at trial and was available for cross-examination.
- The court found no reversible error (and no ineffective assistance) related to Perkins’s identification testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A witness’s professed lack of memory at trial may be treated as inconsistent with a prior account, permitting admission of the earlier statement as a prior inconsistent statement under Iowa evidence rules.
- When the declarant appears at trial and is subject to cross-examination, admitting the witness’s prior identification through another witness does not violate confrontation protections as applied in this case.
- Challenges based on the minutes of testimony require a showing of unfair surprise or prejudice; counsel’s choice whether to object may be reasonable trial strategy absent a showing of deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed Russell’s second-degree murder conviction because the record contained substantial evidence that he participated in the fatal assault and because the district court properly admitted a key witness’s prior identification despite the witness’s claimed memory loss at trial.


State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307 (Iowa 2017)