STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. KENNETH MICHAEL MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-940 / 06-1936
Filed February 27, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
KENNETH MICHAEL MURPHY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sylvia A. Lewis,
District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of harassment.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Jason B. Shaw, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant Attorney
General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, and Deborah Farmer Minot,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Eisenhauer, J., and Brown, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2007).
2
BROWN, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
In 2005, Joanne was involved in planning the fortieth reunion for her high
school class, which had graduated in 1966. As part of her duties she had a list of
class members to notify of the reunion. Joanne placed her home street address
and e-mail address on the notices so class members could respond regarding
their interest in attending the reunion planned for the summer of 2006.
One of the notices was sent to class member Kenneth Murphy, then
incarcerated at the Clarinda Correctional Facility. 1
Murphy responded by
sending Joanne a long handwritten letter, dated August 20, 2005, to her home.
The letter contained Murphy’s suggestions for the upcoming reunion, and ideas
he was incorporating into a historical musical about the electoral college.
Joanne is a high-school teacher. In February 2006, she received, via a
student who volunteered at a homeless shelter, a second letter from Murphy.
The letter stated Murphy was out of prison. During a long discussion of the
musical, he mentioned that one of the characters had been named after “one of
his own unrequited love interests,” J.O., which was Joanne’s maiden name.
Joanne received a third letter from Murphy, postmarked February 25,
2006, at her home. In this twenty-two page letter Murphy stated he had a crush
on Joanne in high school. He stated he often had sexual fantasies about her,
was presently interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with her, and possibly
wanted to marry her. Murphy stated he looked up Joanne’s address in a city
1
Joanne had no contact with Murphy in the thirty-nine years between the time they
graduated in 1966 and the notice she sent in 2005. Joanne stated she knew Murphy in
high school, but she “never had any relationship with him.”
3
directory and noticed she was the only adult listed living there. He also looked
up her address on a map, so he could see where she lived. He mentioned that
although he was interested in a sexual relationship, he had not resorted to rape.
He stated, “I can only hope you won’t get angry at some of the observations I
have made, and that you will appreciate my honesty.” He also stated he waited
until he got out of prison to send Joanne this letter because he did not want the
prison guards to be “titillated” by the contents.
Joanne became very concerned about the contents of the third letter. She
contacted Lieutenant Sid Jackson of the Iowa City Police Department.
Lieutenant Jackson advised Joanne not to return to her home for a week until he
had the opportunity to determine the level of threat presented by the letters.
Lieutenant Jackson contacted Murphy and told him he was never again to
contact Joanne in any way. He told Murphy that if he felt the need to contact
Joanne or to inquire about the reunion, he should contact Lieutenant Jackson
instead.
Despite this admonition Murphy sent Joanne a fourth letter, postmarked
June 22, 2006. Murphy stated he felt no one wanted him to attend the reunion.
He stated he would like to attend the reunion in order to refute statements made
about him by a psychiatrist that he was an “imminent threat” to another woman.
Murphy also sent an e-mail to Joanne, dated June 28, 2006, stating “Would
prefer that my communications with you not be a one-way street.” Joanne did
not respond to any of Murphy’s communications.
4
Murphy was arrested and charged with two counts of first-degree
harassment. 2 The first charge was based on the communications in February
2006, and the second for the communications in June 2006. After a trial a jury
found Murphy guilty on both counts.
Murphy was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment not to exceed two years on each count, to be served
consecutively. Murphy has appealed his conviction on count I only, claiming
there is insufficient evidence in the record to support his conviction on this count.
II.
Standard of Review
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the correction
of errors at law. State v. Schmidt, 480 N.W.2d 886, 887 (Iowa 1992). A guilty
verdict is binding on appeal, unless the record lacks substantial evidence to
support it, or the verdict is clearly against the weight of the evidence. State v.
Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
Substantial evidence
means evidence that could convince a rational fact finder that the defendant is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
III.
Merits
The crime of harassment is found in Iowa Code section 708.7(1) (2005),
which provides:
a. A person commits harassment when, with intent to
intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, the person does any of
the following:
(1) Communicates with another by telephone, telegraph,
writing or via electronic communication without legitimate purpose
and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or
harm.
2
Murphy was charged with first-degree harassment under Iowa Code section 708.7(2)
(2005), because he had three previous convictions for harassment within the preceding
ten years.
5
The parties agree that Count I is based on the third letter from Murphy to
Joanne. Murphy argues there is no indication from the content of the letter that
he had a specific intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm Joanne. Murphy asserts
the third letter “is the misguided attempt by which he attempts to woo her.” He
states that while the letter contains sexual overtures, he was trying to indicate an
interest in a romantic relationship with Joanne.
Harassment is a specific intent crime. State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480,
483 (Iowa 2001).
The State must show a person has the specific intent to
intimidate, annoy, or alarm another. State v. Mulvaney, 600 N.W.2d 291, 294
(Iowa 1999). “[B]ecause a defendant’s intent is seldom capable of direct and
positive proof, it may be inferred from the defendant’s acts and surrounding
circumstances.” State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Iowa 1989). An intent
to annoy may be inferred from the use of profane or otherwise objectionable
language. Id. at 784. The term “alarm” used in section 708.7(1) means “to
‘cause (someone) to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger.’” State v. Evans,
671 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2003) (citation omitted).
We find there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s conclusion the
third letter was specifically intended to intimidate, annoy, or alarm Joanne. The
letter contains several personal references of a sexual nature. He stated he had
sexual fantasies about her in high school and imagined her without her clothes
on. He noted she was “not the girl with the biggest tits in our class,” but he was
still attracted to her.
Murphy wondered if Joanne had been working as a
prostitute in Chicago. He stated he imagined Joanne wearing a heart-shaped g-
6
string, and then taking it off. He stated he wanted to show Joanne “a proper
appreciation for what you have inside your bra and panty.” These statements are
profane and objectionable because they show an attempt to debase or defile
Joanne through specific crude statements about her sexuality, and the jury could
easily infer Murphy intended to annoy Joanne by these statements.
The letter also shows an intent to intimidate and alarm Joanne. Murphy
specifically notes that he looked up Joanne’s address in a city directory and
found that she was the only adult living at her address. 3 After noting that he
knew she was not living with any other adults, he states that he also looked up
her address on a map, so he knew where she lived.
Murphy makes the
statement that although he would like to have sex with a woman, “the good news
is I haven’t resorted to rape.”
These statements could reasonably cause
someone to feel frightened, disturbed, or in danger.
Murphy’s third letter shows he was aware the letter might intimidate,
annoy, and alarm Joanne. At the beginning of the letter he states he waited until
he got out of prison to send the letter to Joanne because he did not want to give
“some correctional officer juicy tidbits to gossip about with other correctional
officers.” He also states, “I realize what I’ve just written may cause you to blush,
but I would hope that you are blushing with pleasure.” He states he would not
share the letter with “uncouth guys in prison who might not appreciate its
nuances.” “Nor is it the kind that you would particularly want some corrections
officer assigned to review outgoing mail for security reasons to be able to get
titillated about.” Murphy concludes by stating, “I can only hope you won’t get
3
Joanne is a widow.
7
angry at some of the observations I have made, and that you will appreciate my
honesty.”
Although Murphy suggests innocent interpretations for these statements,
the jury rejected his views, which is its prerogative. The jury could, and did,
reasonably conclude Murphy’s intent was to intimidate, annoy, or alarm Joanne.
Her testimony discloses it actually caused all three.
We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support
Murphy’s conviction for first-degree harassment based on the third letter he sent
to Joanne. The contents of the letter show it was sent with the specific intent to
intimidate, annoy, or alarm another. Furthermore, the letter was sent without a
legitimate purpose because it did not concern the high school reunion, which was
the reason Joanne initially contacted Murphy. We affirm Murphy’s conviction.
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.
