STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HUBERT LAWRENCE HARDESTY, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-609 / 05-1180
Filed November 30, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HUBERT LAWRENCE HARDESTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Martha L. Mertz,
Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for murder in the first degree.
AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean Pettinger, Assistant Attorney
General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and Scott Nicholson, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
2
ROBINSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Linda McQuerrey lived in a trailer park near Hubbell Avenue in Des
Moines. Hubert (“Bob”) Hardesty was a frequent visitor at her home. Hardesty
was described as a white male in his sixties with gray hair and glasses. He
drove a 1988 gray Mercury Marquis. Hardesty, who was a married man, was
having a sexual relationship with McQuerrey.
On June 19, 2004, McQuerrey’s neighbors observed Hardesty’s vehicle
parked in front of McQuerrey’s home at about 5:00 p.m.
Robin Hull saw
Hardesty walk from his vehicle to the trailer, and then walk back to his car.
Another neighbor, Lesly Sprague, observed McQuerrey leaving the trailer park as
the passenger in a green or gray older model Mercury or Oldsmobile.
Michael House saw Hardesty’s car drive into Ashton Park in Jasper
County around 5:00 p.m. The vehicle was driven by a white male and had a
passenger. Jay Boomershine, who was picnicking in the park with his family,
saw a tall, white, elderly man with whitish-gray hair washing something at a water
pump. The man had a larger, darker-colored vehicle. Cynthia Corbin, who was
in the park to pick raspberries, specifically identified Hardesty as the man who
almost hit her car in the park. She observed he was in the car alone. At about
7:00 p.m. that evening, McQuerrey’s body was found in Ashton Park. She had
been stabbed several times and her throat was cut.
An agent from the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) observed
Hardesty’s vehicle in the trailer park at noon the next day, June 20, 2004. A
police officer who was conducting surveillance at McQuerrey’s home on the
3
evening of June 20 saw Hardesty’s vehicle parked in the trailer park. He noted
that Hardesty had started to walk toward McQuerrey’s trailer, but stopped when
he saw the police vehicle, turned around, and left.
On June 21, 2004, police officers obtained a search warrant for Hardesty’s
home in Des Moines. They seized four boxes of “Extreme Edge” brand knives.
One of the boxes had been opened and was empty. The remaining three boxes
contained knives with eight-inch serrated blades and forked tips. The forked tip
of the knives matched the stab wounds to McQuerrey’s abdomen. Also, the cut
to McQuerrey’s throat had been made with a serrated blade.
While the search warrant was being executed, Hardesty agreed to
accompany officers to the police station. He was informed of his Miranda rights.
Hardesty initially denied knowing McQuerrey, but then admitted to the affair. He
also initially denied being in the trailer park on June 19. He then stated he may
have driven through, but did not stop. He gave several different versions of his
activities and whereabouts on June 19. In general, Hardesty stated he took a
nap from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m., and his wife and step-daughter were home when he
got up. He stated he left about 5:00 to look for pop cans. He stated he was
home between 6:30 and 7:30, at which time he played chess on the computer,
and watched television.
Hardesty’s wife and step-daughter testified they left home about 3:40 p.m.
on June 19, and returned at 7:15. They stated Hardesty was not home when
they arrived, but the washing machine was running. Hardesty returned about ten
to fifteen minutes later.
Hardesty’s computer showed it had not been used
between 3:36 and 7:50 p.m.
4
A blood stain matching McQuerrey’s DNA profile was found on the carpet
of the passenger compartment in Hardesty’s vehicle. In addition, blood splatters
matching McQuerrey’s DNA profile were found on Hardesty’s shoes. Hardesty
had fresh wounds on his hands, and other blood stains found in the vehicle and
on Hardesty’s clothing were identified as his.
Hardesty was charged with murder in the first degree, in violation of Iowa
Code sections 707.1 and 707.2(1) (2003). He filed a motion to suppress the
evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant, claiming the warrant was not
supported by probable cause. The district court determined officers reasonably
believed Hardesty was either involved with or had knowledge of the
circumstances surrounding McQuerrey’s death.
The court noted Hardesty’s
vehicle had been seen parked at McQuerrey’s home and entering Ashton Park.
McQuerrey was seen in a vehicle matching the description of Hardesty’s vehicle.
The court denied the motion to suppress.
Hardesty sought to introduce evidence ostensibly to indicate the crime
could have been committed by another person, Matt Carlson. He asserted that
McQuerrey and Carlson were engaged in a sexual relationship and evidence of
the relationship should be presented to the jury. The district court determined
Hardesty was only conjecturing that Carlson might have committed the offense,
and did not permit him to introduce this evidence.
A jury found Hardesty guilty of first-degree murder. He now appeals.
II.
Search Warrant
Hardesty claims the search warrant was not supported by probable cause.
The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to support a search warrant.
5
State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 131 (Iowa 2006). A challenge to a search
warrant on constitutional grounds is reviewed de novo.
N.W.2d 651, 655-56 (Iowa 2004).
State v. Davis, 679
“We do not make an independent
determination of probable cause, but only determine whether the issuing court
had a substantial basis for finding the existence of probable cause.” Id. at 656.
We consider only that information, reduced to writing, which was presented to the
judge who issued the search warrant. State v. Gogg, 561 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa
1997).
To determine if there is probable cause, a court considers “whether a
person of reasonable prudence would believe a crime was committed on the
premises to be searched or evidence of a crime could be located there.” Id. Our
supreme court has stated:
The task of the judge issuing the search warrant is “to make a
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit” presented to the judge,
there is a fair probability that law enforcement authorities will find
evidence of a crime at a particular place. A finding of probable
cause depends on “a nexus between criminal activity, the things to
be seized and the place to be searched.”
Davis, 679 N.W.2d at 656 (citations omitted). We draw all reasonable inferences
to support a judge’s finding of probable cause. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d at 132.
In close cases, we resolve doubts in favor of the search warrant’s validity. State
v. Skola, 634 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
The search warrant application stated McQuerrey had been seen leaving
the trailer park on June 19, 2004, with an older gentleman with white hair and
glasses. This met Hardesty’s physical description. McQuerrey’s neighbors often
saw a particular car parked near her home and described this car. Officers saw
6
a car matching this description in the trailer park on June 20, and traced this car
to Hardesty. Patrons at Ashton Park had also observed this car shortly before
McQuerrey’s body was discovered. Based on this information, the district court
issued the search warrant for Hardesty’s home and vehicle.
We determine the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The
application sets forth a nexus between Hardesty, criminal activity, and the places
to be searched. McQuerrey was seen leaving in a vehicle linked to Hardesty,
and his vehicle was linked to Ashton Park, where her body was found. We
conclude the district court properly denied Hardesty’s motion to suppress the
evidence obtained in the search.
III.
Incrimination of Another Person
Hardesty contends the district court should not have precluded him from
presenting evidence to the jury pointing out Carlson’s relationship to McQuerrey.
The State filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit Hardesty from presenting
evidence that McQuerrey was acquainted with Carlson, or that Carlson could
have been responsible for McQuerrey’s death. Hardesty resisted the motion,
and sought to introduce the evidence. The district court determined it would “not
allow the Defendant to point a finger at Carlson absent some evidence showing
motive, overt acts, opportunity, threats or other circumstances connecting
Carlson to the crime.”
An issue regarding the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse
of discretion.
State v. Wilson, 406 N.W.2d 442, 447 (Iowa 1987).
We will
reverse the district court’s determination on the issue of admissibility only when
we find a clear abuse of discretion. Id.
7
Evidence offered by a defendant tending to incriminate another must be
confined to substantive facts and create more than a mere suspicion that such
other person committed the offense. State v. Campbell, 714 N.W.2d 622, 630
(Iowa 2006); State v. Farmer, 492 N.W.2d 239, 242 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). Where
a defendant raises only a suspicion that another committed the crime, the
evidence is properly excluded. See Wilson, 406 N.W.2d at 447. Here, Hardesty
proffered no credible evidence which could even be considered as to raise a
suspicion that Carlson committed the offense. We conclude the district court did
not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence relating to Carlson given the
record made.
IV.
Ineffective Assistance
Hardesty asserts that if error was not preserved as to the issues
addressed above, then he is claiming he received ineffective assistance of
counsel. We have addressed these issues on the merits, and therefore, as a
matter of law, defendant’s conviction is affirmed without preserving the ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See State v. Graves, 663 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa
2003).
We affirm Hardesty’s conviction for first-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
