Appeals Court affirms Ritenour conviction

Alicia Ritenour

Court preserves ineffective assistance of counsel claims

DES MOINES- A mixed decision was handed down by the Iowa Court of Appeals today, as the court voted to uphold Alicia Ritenour’s 2014 conviction of first-degree murder. Ritenour was convicted by a Mahaska County jury of killing her 18 month old daughter, Ava Ritenour. Ava was found deceased in her bedroom in January 2014. A state medical examiner determined that Ava died of trauma to the head, with it being opined that Ava suffered four or five distinct blows to the head.

Ritenour’s case was argued before a panel of five judges of the Iowa Court of Appeals in February. Chief Judge David Danilson, as well as Judges Anuradha Vaitheswaran, Amanda Potterfield, Christopher McDonald, and Mary Tabor all heard the appeal.

The main issue argued by Ritenour on appeal was that Judge Myron Gookin errored in not allowing defense testimony during the trial regarding methamphetamine withdrawal affects that Logan Cavan, a witness for the state and a resident of the apartment at the time of the murder, was experiencing. A divided court ruled that Judge Gookin did not abuse his discretion by barring the testimony.

“Given the minimal information provided in the offer of proof, we conclude the district court did not abuse his discretion in determining Cavan’s prior drug use and subsequent withdrawal were not relevant areas of inquiry,” wrote Judge Mary Tabor in the majority opinion.

In rejecting the abuse of discretion claim by Ritenour, the court did preserve an ineffective assistance of counsel claim made by Ritenour that her attorney failed to secure a ruling from Judge Gookin regarding Cavan’s methamphetamine use “as it relates to his motive and intent.”

The court next addressed two additional ineffective assistance claims made by Ritenour. On appeal, Ritenour claimed that her attorney errored by not objecting to testimony by three different law enforcement officers, as well as testimony by the medical examiner who performed the autopsy, relating to Ritenour’s credibility.

At trial, Oskaloosa Police Lieutenant Russ Van Renterghem testified that he thought Ritenour’s demeanor after police responded to her apartment was “strange.” Van Renterghem further testified that the behavior was “odd for somebody that just learned their child passed away.”

Detective Troy Boston and Iowa Division of Investigation Special Agent Chris Callaway also testified at trial that Ritenour had changed her story at times during the investigation into her daughter’s death.

Additionally, Dr. Michele Catellier testified during the trial that she considered “inconsistent stories” to be a “red flag” when determining if a child’s injury is an accident or not.

Ritenour argues that the testimony offered by all four witnesses is barred because Iowa court rules do not allow for expert witnesses to offer their opinion as to the credibility of a witness. Ritenour states all four witnesses offered opinions as to her credibility. She argues that her attorney should have objected to the statements made during the trial. The court ultimately preserved her claims for possible post-conviction relief proceedings. In doing so, the court noted that the prosecution lacked physical evidence linking Ritenour to her daughter’s death. As such, the court stated that the prosecution seized on Ritenour’s perceived “lack of credibility.”

“Given that focus by the state, it was imperative for defense counsel to take the necessary steps to prevent the jury from hearing impermissible opinions regarding her testimony,” wrote Judge Tabor.

The Court’s decision on Tuesday was not a unanimous opinion by any means. Judge Mary Tabor wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judges Anuradha Vaitheswaran and Amanda Potterfield. Additionally, Judge Christopher McDonald offered a special concurrence to the majority opinion. In his concurrence, McDonald stated that he affirms Ritenour’s murder conviction. However, he disagrees with the majority’s opinion relating to the ineffective assistance of counsel claims. McDonald wrote that he believes the trial record is sufficient enough to address Ritenour’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. McDonald further said that he would not have preserved any of the claims offered by Ritenour.

In his concurrence, McDonald cites a rule of evidence for criminal trials, which states that witnesses may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which would support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.

“Here, the officers testified as fact that witnesses based on their personal observations made during the course of their investigations and as fact witnesses offering lay opinion based upon personal knowledge,” McDonald writes. “An officer’s testimony regarding observed demeanor as a historical fact and lay opinion regarding the observed demeanor is relevant and admissible in Iowa,” he further writes.

Chief Judge David Danilson, however, dissented from the majority opinion and believes that Ritenour should have been awarded a new trial. Danilson wrote in his dissent that he believed Judge Myron Gookin errored in excluding testimony regarding Logan Cavan’s drug use prior to Ava Ritenour’s death, as well as withdrawal symptoms associated with the drug use.

During a hearing held in the middle of the trial regarding the testimony the defense wished to offer, the prosecution argued that defense attorneys were trying to put Cavan on trial for drug use. Danilson disagrees with that statement.

“The purpose of such evidence was not to show Cavan’s propensity for wrongful acts but to prove motive and explain the cause for Cavan’s abnormal hostility towards the child,” wrote Danilson.

Danilson further wrote that if it were Cavan on trial for the murder, prosecutors likely would have wanted that testimony to be allowed and would have tried to claim it as motive for Ava Ritenour’s death

“Yet here, the State complains when the Defense wishes to convey the whole story,” Danilson wrote.

While the court did affirm Ritenour’s conviction, her appeal is not yet finished. Ritneour can request the Iowa Supreme Court to grant further review, which would essentially allow for her appeal to be argued before the Iowa Supreme Court. The court receives hundreds of further review requests each year, however they often grant very few of them. If Ritenour requests further review and it is denied by the Court, she could file a petition for post-conviction relief. Last year, Bradley Arterburn’s conviction was overturned at a post-conviction relief proceeding by Judge Randy DeGeest, who cited ineffective assistance of counsel by Arterburn’s counsel.

The entire opinion by the Iowa Court of Appeals relating to Ritneour’s conviction can be found by clicking on the following link: www.iowacourts.gov/About_the_Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Court_of_Appeals_Opinions/Recent_Opinions/20160615/15-0038.pdf