State of Iowa v. Michael Lee Syperda

Citation: Not availableDocket: 18-1471

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; December 17, 2019; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Michael Lee Syperda appeals his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his estranged wife, Elizabeth, was deceased or that he killed her. The court affirms the conviction, finding sufficient evidence of malice aforethought in Michael's actions leading to Elizabeth's death. However, the court reverses the first-degree murder conviction due to insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, remanding the case for sentencing on second-degree murder.

Michael's appeal also contests the district court's suppression ruling and the admission of prior bad acts, but the court declines to overturn these decisions. It recognizes Michael's pro se supplemental brief, addressing claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, of which one claim is rejected for lack of prejudice, while the others are preserved for potential postconviction relief.

Elizabeth went missing on July 16, 2000, after separating from Michael. Their relationship began when she was a teenager, and Michael later divorced his first wife to be with Elizabeth. Elizabeth's mother, Donna Forshee, opposed the move to Iowa and remained in contact with her daughter. Throughout their relationship, Elizabeth exhibited signs of domestic abuse, noted by a friend, including visible injuries on multiple occasions.

Elizabeth fled a violent incident at Michael's house and sought refuge in Tracey's trailer, expressing fear of ongoing abuse. Tracey observed significant bruising on Elizabeth's abdomen and marks on her arms. During her month-long stay, Michael harassed and intimidated Elizabeth daily, parking close to the trailer and making threats regarding her children, her safety, and even leaving menacing notes and items. Tracey witnessed multiple threats to Elizabeth's life but was unable to get law enforcement to intervene. Despite Tracey’s attempts to dissuade her, Elizabeth married Michael in January 1998, after which he restricted Tracey's contact with her. Elizabeth's mother, Donna, disapproved of the marriage and did not attend the wedding. 

In June 2000, while visiting her mother in California, Michael repeatedly called, expressing anger over the visit and threatening Elizabeth. To escape, Elizabeth moved in with her friend Shannon Gerber, but Michael continued to harass them with threats to kill Elizabeth and her family. Gerber, fearing for Elizabeth's safety, tried to prevent her from returning to Iowa but ultimately could not stop her. After returning, Elizabeth took a job at Experian, where she met Sara Thomas, who noticed bruises on her. Despite Thomas's relationship with another woman, they became romantically involved, and Michael's children caught them in a compromising situation.

Elizabeth moved her belongings to Thomas's apartment after learning the children had seen her, which upset both Michael and Thrasher. Upon returning to the apartment, Thrasher discovered over thirty messages from Michael on the answering machine, beginning with pleas for Elizabeth to return home and escalating to anger and curses. Michael later approached Thrasher outside, asking her to call Thomas to bring Elizabeth back. After Thrasher complied, when Elizabeth and Thomas arrived, they found Michael and Thrasher waiting, which caused them to flee in fear. 

This led to a confrontation in a nearby Hy-Vee parking lot where Michael threatened Elizabeth, ultimately dragging her out of the car, resulting in a lacerated rib and a torn shirt for Elizabeth. They reported the incident to the police, leading to charges against Michael for first-degree burglary and domestic-abuse assault, along with a no-contact order for Elizabeth. 

Following the incident, Elizabeth stayed with Thomas, while Michael harassed them by yelling from across the street and making numerous phone calls, totaling 162 calls to Thomas's apartment between June 26 and July 16. On July 16, Michael's calls intensified, with over a dozen made that evening. When Thomas left for work around 10:30 p.m., Elizabeth was asleep on the couch, but by the time Thomas returned at 4:00 a.m., Elizabeth had disappeared without her belongings or any note. Concerned, Thomas filed a missing-person report after the required twenty-four hours.

On July 17, Michael, who was reportedly intoxicated when his friend Jarrod Krabill arrived at his home, claimed that Elizabeth had left around 5:00 a.m. and decided not to work that day. When contacted by police the following day about Elizabeth's disappearance, Michael denied knowing her whereabouts, and he later stated it was coincidental he had taken a sick day on July 17. In September 2000, during an interview with an investigator, Michael insisted he and Elizabeth had a good relationship and denied any abuse, attributing a past assault to mixing alcohol with emotions.

Michael initially denied making harassing phone calls to Thomas’s apartment but later admitted to them when presented with phone records. He expressed concern about his situation when it was noted that his calls ceased on the night Elizabeth went missing. Michael insisted he was trying to avoid blame and denied any wrongdoing, claiming he never hit a woman. He disparaged Elizabeth, suggesting she was at fault. Despite claiming his vehicle was broken down, it was discovered he had driven his Toyota Land Cruiser to a mechanic shortly thereafter. Following an interview, police obtained a warrant to search his home, where they found a gold "2000" pendant and Elizabeth's V-shaped emerald and diamond ring in an unlocked safe. Elizabeth was known to be sentimental about the ring, which she only removed to bathe. When questioned about the ring in 2013, Michael claimed Elizabeth must have left it behind when moving out, despite evidence showing she wore it during an assault on June 16, 2000. Investigators also discovered Elizabeth had opened a bank account under her maiden name shortly before her disappearance, with a minimal balance, and she had not claimed her final paycheck from Experian. Over nearly two decades, extensive searches for Elizabeth yielded no results, and her case was listed in the National Crime Information Center's missing-persons database without any leads. In November 2017, after renewed investigation, Michael was indicted for first-degree murder. He waived his right to a jury trial, was found guilty after a bench trial, and subsequently moved for a new trial, which the court denied. Michael is now appealing the conviction.

Claims of insufficient evidence are reviewed in bench trials with the same standards as in jury trials, affirming the court’s verdict if substantial evidence supports it. The review process favors the court's findings and focuses on legal errors. In contrast, a denial of a motion for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence is assessed for abuse of discretion, which does not favor the State. The admission of prior bad acts is also reviewed for abuse of discretion, reversing only if the error was prejudicial. The denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo, focusing on whether the issuing judge had a substantial basis for probable cause, which is similarly applied to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

In analyzing sufficiency of the evidence, a conviction hinges on whether a rational factfinder could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The distinction is made between sufficiency (the legal threshold) and weight of the evidence (credibility comparison). The district court examined testimony from numerous witnesses and outlined the requirements for a first-degree murder conviction, specifically that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) Michael Syperda caused Elizabeth Syperda's death, (2) he acted with malice aforethought, and (3) he had specific intent to kill. The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating the corpus delicti, which includes establishing that a death occurred and that the defendant is criminally responsible, allowing for both direct and circumstantial evidence.

The district court determined that Elizabeth's death was not accidental but resulted from the actions of another individual, specifically Michael. The defense conceded that a dead body is not required to prove murder, referencing the "no-body-required" rule. Although Michael questioned the State's evidence of Elizabeth's death, the court found proof beyond a reasonable doubt, dismissing speculation that she might still be alive as unrealistic. Elizabeth, a healthy twenty-two-year-old, disappeared on July 16, 2000, and despite her strong relationships, her family and friends had no further contact with her. Investigators found no clues in the NCIC missing-persons database and conducted extensive searches without success. Evidence indicated that Elizabeth had opened a checking account shortly before her disappearance but had never cashed her last paycheck, suggesting she did not have the means or desire to go into hiding. 

The court also found substantial evidence to support the conclusion that Michael caused Elizabeth’s death, considering his history of controlling behavior and violence towards her. His motive was evident through his attempts to isolate her from friends and family, as well as previous violent incidents, including physical abuse and threats of murder. Testimony revealed that whenever Elizabeth attempted to leave, Michael resorted to intimidation tactics, including stalking her and leaving threatening messages. The court's meticulous review of the evidence led to the conclusion that Michael's actions directly resulted in Elizabeth's death.

Michael exhibited obsessive and threatening behavior towards Elizabeth, particularly in June 2000, when he repeatedly called her during her trip to California and made death threats against her and her family. After Elizabeth moved in with another man, Thomas, Michael escalated his harassment, publicly assaulting her and violating a no-contact order. His history of verbal threats and violence led the district court to reasonably conclude he was responsible for her death. 

Evidence supporting this conclusion included Michael's inconsistent statements to police, where he denied any abuse despite a recent assault and later admitted to harassing calls only when confronted with records. His claim that he was simply trying to avoid jail and his suggestion that Elizabeth was responsible for her situation further indicated a consciousness of guilt. 

Particularly notable was the discovery of Elizabeth's emerald and diamond ring in Michael's possession. Initially claiming she left it behind, he could not explain how he came to have it after being confronted with evidence that she was wearing it during an assault. The court found it improbable that Elizabeth would leave such a significant item behind voluntarily, inferring that Michael had retained it after disposing of her body. Although Michael attempted to downplay the significance of the ring, the court's reasoning established a plausible link between him and Elizabeth’s murder, given her attachment to the ring and his fixation on her.

Michael is inferred to have recouped a ring before disposing of Elizabeth’s body and did not foresee a photograph of her wearing it prior to her disappearance. Evidence indicates Michael was the last person to speak with Elizabeth at 10:56 p.m. on July 16, and he claimed she stayed at his house that night. Compounding the suspicious circumstances, he missed work on July 17 and did not resume calling Elizabeth, despite being unaware of her disappearance until July 20. Although Michael argued his calling pattern was irregular, the factfinder could reasonably conclude he ceased calling because he knew she was dead. The court referenced a similar case where a defendant’s abrupt halt in communication after a girlfriend's disappearance contributed to a murder conviction.

The district court found the State's evidence sufficient to establish that Michael's actions led to Elizabeth's death, noting that there are many ways to kill without leaving blood or easily discoverable evidence. The analysis then shifted to Michael's intent, crucial for establishing murder with malice aforethought under Iowa law. While the State presented adequate evidence for malice, the court acknowledged that the evidence was insufficient for a first-degree murder conviction, which requires willful, deliberate, and premeditated action with intent to kill. 

Malice aforethought is defined as a premeditated intent to physically harm another person, which need not be held for a specific duration. The State demonstrated that Michael's possessive and controlling behavior suggested a motive for harm, especially after Elizabeth's involvement with another partner. His history of threats to kill her and to dispose of her body supported the inference of premeditated intent, qualifying his mindset as malice aforethought.

The court upheld the conviction for murder but determined that the evidence did not support a finding of first-degree murder, which requires specific intent to kill. Instead, the distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder lies in the requirement of specific intent, as established in State v. Klindt and State v. Hanes. The district court's reasoning, which implied that intent could exist at any time, was incorrect. The State failed to demonstrate that Michael's intent to kill was present at the time of the act. Given the possibility that Michael's actions could have been spontaneous or impulsive, a second-degree murder conviction was more appropriate. The court reversed the first-degree murder conviction, remanding for a judgment on second-degree murder.

Regarding the weight of the evidence, Michael claimed that the verdict contradicted the evidence, focusing on the credibility issues of witness Krabill. The district court found Krabill's trial testimony credible despite prior inconsistencies. As the trial was a bench trial, the district court evaluated credibility and did not overlook critical evidence. A new trial based on the weight of the evidence is only warranted if critical evidence was ignored, which was not the case here. The district court thoroughly considered all testimony before reaching its verdict.

The district court had broad discretion regarding Michael's motion for a new trial, and no abuse of that discretion was found, thus denying Michael's request for a new trial on the second-degree murder charge. Michael challenged the search warrant used by police to search his home, where they discovered jewelry belonging to the victim, Elizabeth, including a significant ring gifted by her mother and a necklace from Michael. He argued that the warrant was not supported by probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment. The court explained that probable cause requires a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime would be found at the searched location. The affidavit for the search warrant included details about Elizabeth’s disappearance, Michael's inconsistent statements to police, and a previous assault he committed against her. It also mentioned threats he had made to his ex-wife. The court concluded that these circumstances provided sufficient basis for the magistrate to determine probable cause existed, as a reasonable person could infer that evidence of a crime might be found at Michael's residence. Therefore, the suppression ruling was affirmed.

Additionally, Michael sought to exclude evidence of his prior threats and assaults against Elizabeth under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b). The court did not decide on this motion before the trial, but the defense raised objections during the trial regarding specific instances of prior bad acts, including an assault one month before Elizabeth's disappearance and an earlier incident in which he pushed her down the stairs.

In 1998, Michael threatened and harassed Elizabeth, leading to the admission of this prior bad acts evidence in court, which the district court deemed relevant to his motive and intent in the case of her murder. On appeal, Michael claims the court abused its discretion by allowing this evidence, arguing that the State improperly used it to suggest his violent character rather than directly proving intent. He cites the rule that prohibits using prior acts to demonstrate character but allows such evidence for proving motive, opportunity, intent, and other factors. The State contends that prior bad acts are treated differently in domestic violence cases, supporting their relevance to malice aforethought and intent. The court found no abuse of discretion, stating that the evidence was pertinent to identifying Michael as the perpetrator and demonstrating his motive. The evidence of prior acts was not merely a reflection of character but was connected to the pattern of domestic violence, which is crucial for understanding the case. Additionally, the probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by potential unfair prejudice, especially given Michael's choice of a bench trial, which minimizes the risk of bias from prior acts. The court reaffirmed that the admission of such evidence was justified based on the contextual importance and limited other evidence available for prosecution.

Michael is not entitled to relief regarding his evidentiary claim. In May 2019, he filed a pro se supplemental brief, reiterating his appellate attorney's substantial-evidence argument and raising concerns about his trial counsel's performance, which was not addressed by the appellate counsel. Before assessing the merits of this Sixth Amendment claim, the court must determine whether recent legislation, S.F. 589, effective July 1, 2019, prohibits consideration of pro se materials since Michael is represented by counsel. This law stipulates that defendants with legal representation cannot submit pro se documents in Iowa courts, and such filings will not be considered.

The State contends that the new statute applies to Michael's case, affecting procedural aspects of presenting legal issues to appellate courts, while the defense argues the law applies only prospectively and its application violates the separation-of-powers doctrine and Michael's due process rights. Following supplemental briefs, the Iowa Supreme Court's decision in State v. Macke established that certain amendments in S.F. 589 do not apply retroactively to pending appeals as of July 1, 2019, reinforcing that statutes governing appeals are those in effect at the time of the judgment. Consequently, the court concluded that it could consider Michael's pro se brief filed prior to the legislation's effective date.

In addressing the merits of Michael's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, he must demonstrate that his counsel failed to perform an essential duty and that this failure resulted in prejudice. Michael argues that his trial attorney should have contested the admission of a videotaped deposition of Thomas, who was unable to attend trial due to pregnancy complications. The prosecutor arranged for a preservation deposition shortly before the trial. Michael contends that Thomas was not "unavailable" for confrontation clause purposes, challenging the validity of the deposition's admission under the Sixth Amendment, as he believes his counsel acquiesced to the State's plan without proper objection.

Michael's trial attorney did not breach a material duty by agreeing to a video deposition, as there was reasonable belief that the witness, Thomas, was unavailable due to medical restrictions. The precedent set in Frankina v. Vasbinder supports the notion that a witness can be deemed unavailable under similar circumstances. Michael attended the deposition and had the opportunity for extensive cross-examination, negating claims of prejudice. He also argued inadequate preparation time and a conflict of interest due to concurrent representation in a separate burglary case; however, these claims were not sufficiently supported by the record and are preserved for potential post-conviction relief (PCR) proceedings. The court found substantial evidence for Michael's guilt in the murder of Elizabeth but determined that the State failed to prove he had the specific intent to kill, leading to the reversal of his first-degree murder conviction. Challenges regarding the search warrant and prior bad acts evidence were rejected, and while the handling of the video deposition was deemed competent, other ineffective-assistance claims remain preserved. The judgment is partially affirmed, partially reversed, and Michael is to be resentenced for second-degree murder.