State of Iowa v. Seth Andrew Techel

Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-1520

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; July 27, 2016; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Seth Techel was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of his wife, Lisa, and nonconsensual termination of a human pregnancy concerning their unborn daughter. Following two mistrials due to hung juries, a third jury found him guilty, leading to his appeal against the district court's decisions to deny motions for a continuance and a mistrial, as well as claims of insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The case, presided over by Judge Daniel P. Wilson in the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Iowa.

The background reveals that Seth and Lisa, married in October 2011, had aspirations to work in law enforcement. On May 26, 2012, Seth reported to 9-1-1 that Lisa had been shot. His account included waking early, letting the dog outside, and returning to bed before hearing a gunshot. After discovering Lisa injured, he attempted to perform CPR but was unable to do so. Emergency responders later pronounced Lisa and her unborn child dead due to the gunshot wound. Seth's behavior and statements during the incident were scrutinized throughout the trial.

Officers conducted a search of Seth's property after he reported an intruder but found no one. Seth identified Brian Tate, a neighbor, as a potential suspect in Lisa's death, citing an ongoing dispute between them, which included hostile acts like throwing a dead deer between properties. Seth claimed Tate had been lurking near their property, although he had not directly witnessed this behavior. Tate had previously contacted law enforcement over minor disputes involving the Techels, indicating a strained relationship.

Deputy Caldwell, aware of this history, immediately suspected Tate's involvement in Lisa's death. The Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) assisted in the case, and Special Agent Chris Thomas interviewed Seth about Lisa's relationships and their marital happiness. Seth rated their relationship as an eight or nine out of ten, claiming they had not argued significantly before the shooting, despite a minor confrontation over his reluctance to listen to a fetal heart monitor.

When questioned about potential extramarital affairs, Seth initially downplayed his texting relationship with coworker Rachel McFarland but later revealed that they had hugged and kissed multiple times. He denied any sexual relationship but admitted that just weeks prior to Lisa's death, he had been with McFarland while Lisa was searching for him. Seth acknowledged that McFarland believed he was leaving Lisa, although he insisted that was not his intention, maintaining that their marriage had typical arguments over their seven years together.

Seth expressed his intention to remain committed to Lisa despite external pressures, citing their marriage and impending parenthood. He complied with a request from Agent Thomas to list firearms in his home but omitted a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun left by a friend. On May 27, 2012, deputies discovered this shotgun on the Techels’ property, which had a fired shell casing and four unfired deer slugs. Forensic analysis confirmed the shotgun was used to kill Lisa.

Seth faced charges of first-degree murder and nonconsensual termination of a pregnancy. Initial trials resulted in mistrials due to deadlocked juries. After changing defense counsel and venue, a third trial was scheduled for July 14, 2014. However, on May 2, 2014, Seth’s new counsel requested a continuance, citing insufficient time to prepare and the need for Lisa’s phone records. The court denied this request, emphasizing the defense's responsibility for adequate preparation.

On May 19, 2014, Seth sought a forensic examination of Lisa’s cell phone at the State’s expense, leading to a deposition notice for Jason Tinnes, a coworker of Lisa. A subsequent motion for continuance was filed due to delays in obtaining Tinnes's and Lisa’s phone records and Tinnes's unavailability for deposition until shortly before trial. The court again denied the continuance.

On July 11, 2014, Seth requested a third continuance after learning during Tinnes's deposition about his sexual relationship with Lisa, which could suggest a motive for her murder. Seth’s counsel argued that law enforcement may have been aware of this relationship through deleted text messages on Lisa’s phone. The court denied the continuance but allowed time during the trial for further depositions as part of the ongoing investigation.

Rachel McFarland testified that her relationship with Seth began as coworkers in November 2011 and became flirtatious by December, including the exchange of nude photographs. In late January 2012, Seth's wife, Lisa, discovered text messages between them, leading to an angry confrontation with McFarland, who then ceased communication through Seth's regular phone. However, Seth purchased a TracFone and created an email account under the alias "Rick Jones" to continue their interactions, which included sexual texts. Their relationship escalated to physical intimacy by late February or early March 2012.

McFarland's relationship with her boyfriend ended in mid-May 2012, largely due to her involvement with Seth, after which she began dating another coworker, Brandon Coffman. Seth expressed jealousy over this new relationship. On May 20, 2012, McFarland communicated her desire to be with Seth despite his marriage, while Seth indicated he intended to divorce Lisa. They met that evening and engaged in intimate behavior. Seth requested two weeks to resolve his situation with Lisa, which McFarland later interpreted as needing to give notice at work.

In subsequent messages, McFarland conveyed her reluctance to wait for Seth to divorce and expressed her growing affection for Coffman. She urged Seth to remain with Lisa until after the baby was born, indicating her parents advised her to avoid Seth if he was uncertain about his marriage. On May 24, she anticipated Seth would ask Lisa for a divorce and expressed love for him, yet voiced doubts about his intentions. Seth reassured her of his commitment, stating he loved her and wished her luck with the situation. The following day, McFarland inquired about Seth's conversation with Lisa, revealing Seth's unhappiness in his marriage while acknowledging the emotional turmoil it caused her, especially given Lisa's pregnancy.

McFarland testified that Seth's last message to her from his TracFone was "I love you," sent at 1:54 p.m. on May 25, but his final messages continued from his regular cell phone starting at 1:56 p.m. and lasted until 11:19 p.m., discussing Lisa's return home to pack her belongings. On May 26, after learning of Lisa's murder, McFarland texted Seth offering support while respecting his space. During the trial, Seth’s counsel deposed law enforcement officials and Tinnes, who admitted to having a sexual relationship with Lisa before her marriage to Seth, although he claimed not to be the father of her child. He acknowledged lying about the affair to protect his wife and testified that he and Lisa ended their relationship two months before her death but continued texting her until late April 2012. Tinnes denied involvement in Lisa’s murder. Tinnes’s wife testified she learned of his affair shortly before the trial and that he was home during the murder. In closing arguments, Seth criticized the investigation as flawed and suggested other individuals had motives. The jury convicted Seth, who subsequently appealed, challenging the denial of his motions for a trial continuance and mistrial, citing insufficient evidence for his convictions and ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed the court abused its discretion by denying his motions, arguing that the State's failure to disclose information about Tinnes hindered his defense. The court generally reviews such motions for abuse of discretion, but constitutional claims are reviewed de novo, with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.9 emphasizing that trial dates are firm and continuances require good cause.

The burden of proof for a continuance lies with the party requesting it, who must demonstrate that granting the continuance will lead to a more just outcome. The trial judge has broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny such motions, including those based on surprise. Even if an error occurs, it does not warrant reversal unless it is harmful. 

Seth argues that the State violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. To establish a Brady violation, Seth must show that the prosecution suppressed evidence that was favorable and material to his case. Favorable evidence can be exculpatory or useful for impeachment. The prosecution is obligated to disclose evidence known to others in the government’s service, including law enforcement, without regard to the prosecutor's good or bad faith. However, evidence is not deemed suppressed if the defendant was aware or should have been aware of the key facts.

In this case, both the prosecution and Seth's counsel were surprised by claims regarding an affair between Lisa and Tinnes, and there was no evidence that law enforcement had reason to doubt Tinnes’ testimony. The court found no suppression of evidence, as the prosecution had no prior knowledge of the affair. Seth provided vague reasons for a continuance and did not demonstrate that further investigation would yield material evidence. He was able to use the affair information during the trial to support his defense and discredit Tinnes. Timely mid-trial disclosure of evidence satisfies Brady requirements, as due process is met if the defendant can use the information effectively at trial. 

The court affirmed the denial of Seth's motion for a continuance and a mistrial, ruling that it did not violate his due process rights and that there was no abuse of discretion. Additionally, regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, the court noted that it reviews the evidence favorably to the State and will uphold the verdict if substantial evidence supports it. The evidence against Seth was primarily circumstantial, and the jury has the discretion to accept or reject evidence presented.

Evidence presented by the State indicated that Seth was involved in an affair with McFarland and expressed a desire to divorce Lisa, stating she would leave him. However, Lisa did not inform anyone of this intention. She was shot and killed on the same day Seth told McFarland about her impending departure. At the time of the murder, only Lisa and Seth were present in the home. Seth was awake but claimed he did not witness or hear anything aside from the gunshot. Although he stated he was unable to assist Lisa after the shooting, he called 9-1-1, got dressed, and waited outside for help. The murder weapon, a gun that had been in the home, was the only one Seth failed to list when asked about firearms. His assertion that he and Lisa were happy the night before contradicts his statements to McFarland about wanting a divorce. Seth altered his claim regarding their happiness only after being confronted with knowledge of an argument they had that night, which he subsequently minimized. Numerous misleading statements by Seth about his relationship with Lisa, his affair, and the events leading to Lisa's death were noted. While direct evidence of murder was absent, the circumstantial evidence was deemed sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seth also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that certain questioning led to a witness commenting on his truthfulness and that his counsel should have objected to statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Generally, these claims are reserved for postconviction-relief proceedings, but the record was deemed adequate for resolution. Seth argued that trial counsel elicited testimony from Agent Thomas suggesting Seth had been untruthful, which could imply guilt. However, since Seth admitted to lying during the interview, the court concluded that Agent Thomas's comments were non-testimonial and did not improperly influence the jury's role or imply Seth's guilt.

Trial counsel is not obligated to pursue meritless claims, leading to the conclusion that Seth's assertion of ineffective counsel lacks merit. Seth contends that his counsel failed to object to a statement by the prosecutor during rebuttal, which he claims was misconduct that he did not invite. To substantiate a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, Seth must demonstrate both the misconduct and resulting prejudice, assessed through five factors: 1) severity and pervasiveness of the misconduct, 2) its significance to the case's central issues, 3) strength of the State’s evidence, 4) use of cautionary instructions, and 5) whether the defense invited the misconduct. Generally, prejudice arises from consistent efforts to introduce prejudicial information rather than isolated incidents. Even if the prosecutor's statement was deemed misconduct, Seth did not prove that it caused prejudice, especially given the strength of the State's evidence. All claims were found to lack merit individually, leading to the rejection of his cumulative error claim. Consequently, Seth Techel’s convictions are affirmed.