T-R PHOTO BY SUSANNA MEYER The Iowa Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for three cases at the Marshalltown High School on Thursday morning. From left to right, Judges Mary Chicchelly, Paul Ahlers, Sharon Soorholtz Greer, Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Chief Judge Thomas Bower, Mary Tabor, Julie Schumacher and Gina Badding prepare to begin.

The Iowa Court of Appeals heard oral arguments for three different cases on Thursday morning at Marshalltown High School, and students from MHS, East Marshall and West Marshall all had the opportunity to sit in on the proceedings.

The court heard attorneys argue the cases of State v. Hurdel, a Webster County case, State v. Wenzel, a Dickinson County case and State v. Dewbre, an Emmet County case. Chief Judge Thomas Bower and Judges Mary Chicchelly, Paul Ahlers, Sharon Soorholtz Greer, Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Mary Tabor, Julie Schumacher and Gina Badding heard the cases, with certain judges choosing to excuse themselves from each case due to possible conflicts of interest.

The first case brought before the judges was the State v. Hurdel case, which concerns Justin Hurdel’s first-degree murder conviction that he seeks to appeal.

Maggie Hurdel wanted to divorce her husband, Justin Hurdel. Justin went to the office of Maggie’s attorney on Aug. 5, 2020 and signed the divorce papers, and afterward, Hurdel saw Maggie at a mutual friend’s house. Subsequently, he left, put on camouflage clothes, got a shotgun, and then returned to the friend’s home where he shot and killed Maggie.

After shooting Maggie, he non fatally shot himself and then fled. Justin was arrested the day after the shooting, given some medical treatment, and then he was taken to an interrogation room and interviewed. He was eventually charged with first-degree murder.

Before trial, Justin’s attorney moved to suppress statements made to the police in the interrogation room, as well as the contents that were extracted from his cellphone after a citizen found it on the side of the road and turned it over to police. His motion was denied by the district court.

At trial, Justin testified that he decided to kill himself after signing the divorce papers and he returned to his friend’s home so his mother wouldn’t find his body. Justin denied intending to kill Maggie and testified that when he pumped the gun, it went off, hitting her.

The appeal presented on Thursday questioned if there was enough evidence to establish that Justin acted with specific intent to kill Maggie, as well as if the district court should have suppressed Justin’s statements to police because he possibly invoked his right to counsel and didn’t knowingly waive the right.

In addition to those two questions, whether or not the district court should have suppressed the text messages extracted from Justin’s phone without a warrant and whether or not the court improperly admitted text messages sent by Maggie before her death that were hearsay into evidence was also called into question.

Attorney Jamie Hunter represented Hurdel during the oral arguments, and she argued that the district court should have suppressed a video interrogation of Justin. Hunter argued that his Miranda rights were not actually waived at the time, because he was in need of medical treatment.

“A Miranda waiver is not made voluntarily if it is done while urgent medical treatment is being withheld,” Hunter said. “Mr. Hurdel shot himself in the face. He was out all night in an abandoned building, in a field. He was found in the field by law enforcement and taken to the hospital. He received initial treatment in the emergency room, but his treating physician consulted with an emergency room doctor with the University of Iowa hospital, and that doctor stressed the urgency of getting him transferred to Iowa City.”

Judge Tabor commented that there was a notation that Justin was in good enough health to jail, which Hunter confirmed was correct, but Hunter said the very next line stated that he should be transferred to Iowa City as soon as possible.

Several judges raised the issue that Justin Hurdel characterized his pain as being low on a pain scale, but Hunter felt that Justin’s characterization of his pain or mental state wasn’t “necessarily reliable under these circumstances.” She asserted that the physician’s opinion is what mattered.

“In watching the video, the first 25, 26 minutes of the video, I think it’s clear that he really doesn’t, he doesn’t want to be there. He doesn’t want to be answering questions. The detective is trying to get him to sign this Miranda waiver, and he’s not signing it. Instead, he says ‘I just want to see what kind of court appointed lawyer I get,'” Hunter said. “And then, a few minutes later, he says ‘How about we get my court appointed lawyer rolling.’ So I think if it wasn’t clear at the onset, it’s certainly clear after those statements.”

After Justin’s statement, the detective left and then came back shortly after to offer food and water, reaffirming that he would be there for a while, according to Hunter. She said it became clear to Justin that he wouldn’t be getting additional medical treatment until he started talking. Hunter said it was as though they were holding the treatment over his head.

The next issue that Hunter raised was the search through Justin’s discarded cell phone without a warrant. The phone was found without a memory card or battery, and Hunter argued that the physical phone itself could be searched for physical evidence, such as fingerprints, because it was abandoned property, but the digital data itself was not abandoned, making the search unlawful in Hunter’s eyes.

The final point was the text messages from Maggie Hurdel that were sent to Justin and used as evidence. Hunter said the text messages painted Justin in a bad light, and while testimony about the couple’s rocky relationship would have still been heard, for the jury to see the text messages from weeks before that were from irrelevant situations, was prejudicial against Justin in Hunter’s eyes.

Attorney Zachary Miller represented the state in the Hurdel case and responded to Hunter’s arguments after she finished speaking. Miller said the court should affirm Justin Hurdel’s guilt, as he said the state offered overwhelming evidence against him.

According to Miller, officers explained that Justin was going to be booked in and then an initial appearance would be set up, and once that step was complete, Miller said officers explained that Justin would be brought to Iowa City for treatment. Miller asserted that Justin knew his talking was not a condition of him getting treatment.

“The state contests that there was an implication of a right to counsel, but the detective left, and he only came back to give water and food. There was no reason that the defendant would think that his statements were necessary for him to get to Iowa City, and in fact, he was taken to Iowa City after he made his initial appearance,” Miller said.

Upon receiving food, Justin began talking with the detective again, and Miller said Justin’s statement about getting a court appointed lawyer rolling was not an unequivocal request for a lawyer to be present while talking, making his statements admissible.

As for the data taken from the cell phone, Miller said a warrant was not needed because the device was abandoned. The data taken from the device was physically on the phone and not stored in the cloud according to Miller, making that evidence also admissible.

Miller also addressed why the murder could be considered pre-meditated, as well as the text messages that Hunter asserted were prejudicial to Justin, stating that the messages were “duplicative” because the other evidence was already overwhelming.

“I think that the course of conduct between the couple, showing his animosity, as well as the state of their relationship, is relevant because it’s only a month, at the farthest, out. The most recent in time text messages were a few days, and it showed that the defendant still wanted this relationship and Maggie didn’t. And so, for those reasons your honor, I think that they were properly admitted, and we would ask this court to affirm,” Miller said.

After a brief rebuttal from Hunter, Chief Judge Bower said the appeal for the State v. Hurdel case was submitted, and he said they would have a ruling out as soon as they were able.

The other two cases brought before the judges, State v. Wenzel and State v. Dewbre, concerned operating while intoxicated charges.

Neil Wenzel was pulled over in Dickinson County, and a deputy noted that Wenzel’s eyes were bloodshot and glossy along with slurred speech. Wenzel was arrested, and the deputy sought a warrant to collect a blood, urine and/or breath specimen from Wenzel, which he ultimately received. The blood sample collected was tested for blood alcohol concentration (BAC), which returned a result of .04.

Later, another test was conducted for controlled substances, and both amphetamines and methamphetamine were found. Wenzel moved to suppress the results of the second test, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights. This motion was denied, and since Wenzel waived his right to a jury trial, the district court found him guilty of OWI second offense.

The question raised during the oral arguments by Wenzel’s attorney, Matthew Sease, was whether or not the district court should have suppressed the second test results because they were the result of an unconstitutional search under the Iowa Constitution, the Federal Constitution, or both.

Sease argued that the warrant was only to test for BAC, and by testing for other controlled substances without probable cause, it violated Wenzel’s rights protecting him from unconstitutional search.

Miller, who once again represented the state in the Wenzel case, said “the state doesn’t have to show probable cause of drugged driving as distinct from drunk driving,” because both are illegal, and there was probable cause since Wenzel had glossy, bloodshot eyes.

After a brief rebuttal from Sease, the case was submitted and Bower said they would be announcing their ruling as soon as possible.

The State v. Dewbre case also concerned an operating while intoxicated charge. Alisha Dewbre was driving in Emmet County when she was pulled over at approximately 1 a.m. The deputy noticed several signs of impairment, and she admitted she had consumed alcohol. The deputy got a search warrant to obtain a blood sample, and when it was tested for BAC, Dewbre had a concentration of .126.

Dewbre moved to suppress the results of the blood test, which the district court denied. Dewbre waived her right to a jury trial and the district court found her guilty of operating while intoxicated.

The question raised in the appeal was whether or not the district court should have suppressed the results of the blood test because the compelled and involuntary blood test violated Dewbre’s constitutional rights to due process and to be free from self-incrimination.

Dewbre’s attorney, Jack Bjornstad, argued that because his client’s blood was forcibly taken from her, it violated the rights protecting her from self-incrimination.

Attorney Timothy Hau represented the state in the Dewbre case, and he argued that physical evidence (such as blood samples) that is not testimonial evidence, is not protected by the right against self-incrimination.

Bjornstad gave a brief rebuttal, and the State v. Dewbre case was also submitted for review by the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Once the judges were finished hearing the cases, they opened up the floor for questions from the audience of high school students, as long as the questions were unrelated to the three appeals. Two court reporters were also introduced to the students, and they were also available to answer questions.

——

Contact Susanna Meyer at 641-753-6611 or

smeyer@timesrepublican.com.