State of Iowa v. Michael Kenneth Hinners

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1280
Filed February 5, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL KENNETH HINNERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Calhoun County, Derek Johnson,

Judge.

Michael Hinners appeals his involuntary manslaughter conviction after a

bench trial claiming the district court erroneously failed to consider his intoxication

defense. AFFIRMED.

Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

Michael Hinners was charged with first-degree murder after shooting and

killing his brother. He waived his right to a jury trial. After a bench trial, the court

found Hinners guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser included offense.

Hinners argued in his post-trial motions that his rights were violated because the

district court failed to address his affirmative defense of intoxication. After his

motions were denied and judgment entered, Hinners appealed raising the same

intoxication issue. We conclude the affirmative defense of intoxication is not

applicable to the crime to which Hinners was convicted, so we affirm.

The district court’s findings of fact follow:

On April 9, 2022, [Hinners] and his brother, [Anthony], spent
the day hunting and consuming alcohol. During the afternoon hours,
the two brothers returned to [Hinners]’s residence at 210 South
Ontario, Pomeroy, located in Calhoun County. Both brothers were
heavily intoxicated. At some point in the early evening, Anthony
decided it was time to leave, but his car would not start. It was
believed that Anthony’s battery was drained as a result of the car’s
dome light being left on. Shortly thereafter, the two brothers began
arguing about the car’s dead battery.
Meanwhile, Ray Chick was sitting in his home across the
street watching TV. Ray’s evening was interrupted when [Hinners]
knocked on the door and asked if Ray had a jump box. Ray informed
[Hinners] that he did not have a jump box, but he had a battery
charger capable of starting Anthony’s car.
Ray located the battery charger and walked to [Hinners]’s
residence. Upon arrival, [Hinners] told Anthony to move the car so
that the cord of the charger could reach the vehicle. Anthony
responded by calling [Hinners] an “idiot” and explained that the car
would not start. [Hinners] repeatedly told Anthony to move the car.
Anthony, who was obviously frustrated that [Hinners] was not
grasping the concept that a car with a dead battery cannot be moved
to a location where the battery charger could reach, continued to
argue and call [Hinners] names.
Ray, recognizing that the two brothers’ argument was not
going to resolve itself, decided to leave to retrieve an additional
extension cord from his residence. Ray returned with the cord and
dropped it in front of Anthony’s car. Ray then walked to the outlet
3

where [Hinners] had previously plugged in a different cord. Ray
attempted to explain to the two brothers that his extension cord was
going to solve the brothers’ current problem and that the car would
eventually start.
As Ray was walking back towards [Hinners]’s house, he heard
a gunshot. Ray’s attention immediately went to Anthony and Ray
witnessed Anthony drop to the ground on his back. From the angle
of where Ray was standing, he could not see into the house, but he
could see a puff of smoke at the entrance of the house. Ray could
not see a gun or the [Hinners].
[Hinners] immediately exited his residence and kneeled down
next to Anthony. Ray asked [Hinners], “Is he okay?” [Hinners] asked
Ray to call for help and stated that he had accidentally shot his
brother. Ray went across the street to his residence and called 911
and remained on his front step until law enforcement and medical
assistance arrived.
Pomeroy Police Chief Lorie Gerdes was the first law
enforcement officer to arrive at [Hinners]’s residence. Upon her
arrival, Chief Gerdes observed [Hinners lying] on his right side next
to Anthony. Chief Gerdes pulled out her firearm and asked
Defendant to move out of the way. [Hinners] did not move.
Chief Gerdes grabbed [Hinners]’s jacket and pulled him away from
Anthony. Chief Gerdes observed that Anthony was not moving or
breathing. Defendant repeatedly stated to Chief Gerdes, “Get him
alive. Get him alive. Where’s the ambulance?” Chief Gerdes
performed CPR on Anthony, and [Hinners] remained lying next to
Anthony. [Hinners] was crying. Chief Gerdes asked [Hinners]
multiple times where the gun was, but [Hinners] refused to provide
the gun’s location. The gun was ultimately located by law
enforcement just inside [Hinners]’s front door. The gun was leaned
up against the inside frame of the door.
[Hinners] provided a statement to law enforcement and
explained that he was sitting on his bed cleaning his gun when
Anthony walked into the house. [Hinners] claimed that the gun
accidentally discharged and Anthony was shot.

In its conclusions of law, the district court found the following facts were proven

beyond a reasonable doubt:

On April 9, 2022, in Calhoun County, Iowa, [Hinners] and his brother,
Anthony, were attempting to start a car. The two brothers were
engaged in a heated argument outside [Hinners]’s home. [Hinners],
out of frustration, went into his residence and retrieved a firearm,
specifically a Harrington and Richardson 10-gauge shotgun. While
standing just inside his front door, [Hinners] intentionally pointed the
firearm at Anthony’s chest while Anthony was still standing outside
4

the house at the bottom of [Hinners]’s front porch steps. The
eyewitness testimony of Ray Chick placed [Hinners] at the bottom of
the steps when he was shot and Ray Chick’s observation of smoke
at the front door established that [Hinners] was at the top of the stairs
just inside the front door when the gun was fired. The testimony of
Dr. Kelly Kruse corroborated Ray Chick’s testimony. Dr. Kruse
testified that the trajectory and direction of Anthony’s wound path,
which went downward, established that the shot would have come
from above him. Common sense further dictates that a gunshot
wound in [and] of itself provides compelling evidence that the gun
was pointed towards the location of the wound.
While the gun was intentionally pointed at Anthony, the gun
discharged and Anthony was shot in the chest. [Hinners]
immediately put the gun down and ran to Anthony’s location.
[Hinners] was upset and requested Ray Chick to call 911. [Hinners]
immediately described the shooting as an accident and has
maintained that position since April 9, 2022.

In its first-degree murder and second-degree murder analysis, the court did note:

[Hinners] was heavily intoxicated to the point where [Hinners] could
not comprehend that a car with a dead battery could not be started
and moved. Dr. Mace Beckson testified that [Hinners]’s blood
alcohol level would have exceeded .300 near the time of the
shooting. Iowa law, specifically Iowa model jury instruction 2500.5,
recognizes that individuals under the influence will experience loss
of bodily control and mental ability. The court certainly questions
[Hinners]’s mental ability to immediately formulate a falsified defense
that an intentional killing was actually an accident.

After finding Hinners not guilty of first-degree murder and second-degree murder,

the court next considered and found Hinners not guilty of the offense of voluntary

manslaughter. Lastly, the court considered the lesser included offense of

involuntary manslaughter by public offense. It concluded:

The State must prove all of the following elements of Involuntary
Manslaughter:
1. On or about the 9th day of April, 2022, [Hinners] recklessly
committed a public offense.
2. When the [Hinners] committed the public offense, the
Defendant unintentionally caused the death of Anthony Hinners.
Iowa Code section 708.1(2)(c) [(2022)] defines the public
offense of assault as the intentional pointing of a firearm towards
another. The evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that
5

on April 9, 2022, [Hinners] committed the general intent crime of
assault by intentionally pointing a firearm at Anthony Hinners.
A person is “reckless” or acts “recklessly” when said person
willfully disregards the safety of persons or property. It is more than
a lack of reasonable care which may cause unintentional injury.
Recklessness is conduct which is consciously done with willful
disregard of the consequences. For recklessness to exist, the act
must be highly dangerous. In addition, the danger must be so
obvious that the actor knows or should reasonably foresee that harm
will more likely than not result from the act.
The court finds that the act of pointing a 10-gauge shotgun at
another individual while intoxicated is highly dangerous and
constitutes recklessness. Furthermore, such an act demonstrated a
willful disregard of Anthony Hinner’s safety. [Hinners] frequently
used firearms and should be well aware that an intoxicated person
pointing a gun at another individual constitutes a dangerous and
lethal combination and that resulting harm is reasonably foreseeable.
The court finds that each and every element of involuntary
manslaughter by public offense was proven beyond a reasonable
doubt, and [Hinners] is hereby found guilty of involuntary
manslaughter, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa Code
section 707.5(1)(a).

On appeal, Hinners does not dispute that he caused the death of his

brother, but he argues it is also undisputed that he was too intoxicated to form

specific intent, which the trial court failed to consider. “It has long been the general

rule in Iowa that, although voluntary intoxication cannot constitute a defense to a

crime, it may negate criminal intent if such intent is an element of the crime

charged.” State v. Caldwell, 385 N.W.2d 553, 557 (Iowa 1986). The district court

found the public offense element of involuntary manslaughter—assault by

intentionally pointing any firearm toward another—to be a general intent crime.

Intoxication is not a defense to a general intent crime. “From the beginning, the

[intoxication] defense has been applied in Iowa only to specific-intent crimes, not

those of general intent.” See State v. Guerrero Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 259

(Iowa 2015), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880
6

N.W.2d 707–08 (Iowa 2016). However, Hinners argues assault is a specific intent

crime subject to the intoxication defense.

The question boils down to whether the specific assault offense relied upon

by the district court—intentional pointing of a firearm toward another, Iowa Code

§ 708.1(2)(c)—is a general-intent or specific-intent crime. The assault statute

provides, in part:

2. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the
person does any of the following:
a. Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or
which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting
or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute
the act.
b. Any act which is intended to place another in fear of
immediate physical contact which will be painful, injurious, or
offensive, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act.
c. Intentionally points any firearm toward another or displays
in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon toward another.

Iowa Code § 708.1(2)(a)–(c). Our legislature has stated that “assault” as defined

in [section 708.1] is a general intent crime.” Iowa Code §708.1(1).

Notwithstanding, the case law makes it clear that assaults under paragraphs (a)

and (b) are specific-intent crimes. See State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263–

65 (Iowa 2010); State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 60–64, 66 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014);

Easton-Cole v. Williamson, No. 22-0734, 2023 WL 2671910, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App.

Mar. 29, 2023).1 “‘Specific intent’ means not only being aware of doing an act and

doing it voluntarily, but in addition, doing it with a specific purpose in mind.” Iowa

1 See also State v. Clark, No. 23-1313, 2024 WL 5153099, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App.

Dec. 18, 2024) (“Assault is a specific-intent crime.” (quoting State v. Krogmann,
998 N.W.2d 141, 158 (Iowa 2023)). Krogmann concerned only the first and second
alternatives of assault, not the third alternative. See 998 N.W.2d at 159
(confronting “the precise question presented” in Beck). Clark also concerned
assault only under paragraphs (a) and (b). 2024 WL 51553099, at *6.
7

Crim. Jury Instruction 200.2. “Because the elements of these [first two] assault

alternatives include an act that is done to achieve the additional consequence of

causing the victim pain, injury or offensive physical contact, the crime includes a

specific intent component.” Beck, 854 N.W.2d at 63.

Our supreme court has not yet addressed whether assaults under

section 708.1(2)(c) require proof of general or specific intent, but this court’s

published and unpublished decisions suggest the third definition of assault is a

general-intent crime. See id. at 66 (holding a 2002 legislative amendment, now

codified at Iowa Code section 708.1(1), which expressly states assault is “general

intent crime,” had “continued effect” because it applied to third alternative means

of commission)2; see also State v. Allen, No. 19-1509, 2021 WL 211133, at *4

(Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021), aff’d on other grounds, 965 N.W.2d 909, 912 (Iowa

2021); State v. Phipps, No. 17-1653, 2018 WL 4638351, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.

Sept. 26, 2018); State v. Meek, No. 16-0797, 2017 WL 706334, at *5 (Iowa Ct.

App. Feb. 22, 2017).

The third alternative means of assault under section 708.1(2)(c)—

intentionally pointing any firearm toward another—was identified by the district

court as the predicate public offense element to Hinners’s involuntary

manslaughter offense. Unlike the first two means of assault under paragraphs (a)

and (b) of section 708.1(2), intentionally pointing any firearm toward another does

2 As a published opinion, Beck is controlling authority. See In re J.C., No. 18-1514,

2018 WL 6719418, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018) (citing Webster v. State,
No. 17-0539, 2018 WL 3873411, at *2 n.4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018)); see also
State v. Laub, 2 N.W.3d 821, 828 (Iowa 2024) (stating “the district court was duty-
bound to apply” a published court of appeals decision).
8

not include an act that is done to achieve an additional consequence, nor does it

require doing the act with a specific purpose.3 Coupled with the section 708.1(1)

statement that “[a]n assault as defined in this section is a general intent crime,” this

leads us to conclude the act of assault in this case, intentionally pointing a firearm

at another, the predict public offense as identified by the district court, is a general

intent crime. Involuntary manslaughter, without a specific-intent element, is a

general-intent crime. Thus, the intoxication defense is not available to Hinners. In

identifying the underlying public offense to the involuntary manslaughter offense,

the district court correctly concluded that Hinners, in pointing a firearm at his

brother, committed a general-intent crime. So, the district court committed no error

in not addressing the intoxication defense. Substantial evidence supports Hinners’

involuntary manslaughter conviction. We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.

3 See Kermit L. Dunahoo, The New Iowa Criminal Code: Part II, 29 Drake Law

Rev. 495, 497 (1980) (suggesting assault by intentionally pointing a firearm toward
another does not “require proof of any specific intent and “[t]hus, the defendant’s
purpose in pointing the firearm is irrelevant” (emphasis in original)).