STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRYSTLE CAROLE CHRISTNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-895 / 05-1319
Filed December 13, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CRYSTLE CAROLE CHRISTNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Daniel
Morrison, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and convictions entered following
guilty verdicts on the counts of child endangerment, second-offense possession
of methamphetamine, neglect of a dependent person, and possession of drug
paraphernalia. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Adams, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, and Barbara A. Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Crystle Christner appeals from the judgment and convictions entered
following guilty verdicts on the counts of child endangerment in violation of Iowa
Code sections 726.6(1)(g) (2003) and 726.6(5), second-offense possession of
methamphetamine in violation of section 124.401(5), neglect of a dependent
person in violation of section 726.3, and possession of drug paraphernalia in
violation of section 124.414.
She contends there is insufficient evidence to
support the convictions of child endangerment and neglect of a dependent
person.
She also contends the court erred in considering her prior deferred
judgment as a previous drug conviction pursuant to section 124.401(5). Finally,
she contends the court erred in permitting the State to dismiss the trial
information without prejudice and in failing to dismiss the same charges filed in a
new trial information.
We review Christner’s claim the evidence was insufficient for errors at law.
State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We will uphold a finding of
guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. “Substantial evidence is
evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id.
Christner argues the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of
child endangerment and neglect of a dependent person because the State failed
to prove her two minor children were present in the home at the same time as the
drugs, paraphenelia, or precursors were. We disagree. Although the children
were not in the home at the time the search warrant was executed, Christner told
Officer Ron See that her children lived with her. Barbie dolls were found in the
3
garage along with methamphetamine and its precursors. Hair testing showed
both children had been exposed to methamphetamine sometime in the three
months leading up to the testing.
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s
verdict.
We also reject Christner’s claim that the trial court erred in permitting the
State to dismiss the original trial information without prejudice and refile the
charges in a new trial information.
speedy trial deadline.
She contends this was done to avoid a
One day prior to the scheduled trial and ten days before
the speedy trial deadline, the county attorney was notified that a key witness for
the State was diagnosed with viral meningitis and was unable to testify. Another
key witness was unavailable to testify if the trial was continued to the following
week. The court then allowed the State to dismiss the case without prejudice
and refile. It found good cause in the illness of the key witness. This was
permissible as the delay was in furtherance of justice. See State v. Fisher, 351
N.W.2d 798, 801 (Iowa 1984) (holding the State is not precluded from refiling
previously dismissed charges when the dismissal was granted to facilitate the
State in gathering evidence, procuring witnesses, or plea bargaining).
However,
we
reverse
Christner’s
convictions
for
possession
of
methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. The State concedes
counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of Christner’s previous
deferred judgment for possession of a controlled substance to enhance the
possession of methamphetamine charge. Had trial counsel objected, the charge
would have had to be refiled as a serious misdemeanor.
The State also
concedes it would have been error to allow refiling of this charge as it would be
4
barred by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(1). Although neither party raises
the issue, the possession of drug paraphernalia charge is a simple misdemeanor,
and accordingly should not have been refiled either.
Counsel breached an
essential duty in not raising these issues and the convictions must be reversed.
We affirm the convictions for child endangerment and neglect of a
dependent person in violation of section 726.3, and reverse the convictions for
possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
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.
