Sentencing hearing for Michael Lang

[00:00:00] Speaker ?: ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:05:58] Speaker 1: Thank you. Normally, I don't allow standing in my courtroom, but for security reasons, but I think we'll be okay. Thank you. Thank you. [00:07:07] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [00:07:08] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:07:09] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:08:07] Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:08:39] Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:08:46] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [00:08:46] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:08:47] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:09:15] Speaker 2: Thank you. [00:09:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:09:16] Speaker 2: Thank you. argument that we had intended to make and wanted to make was that, at least wanted to present to the jury, was the question of whether or not law enforcement was there, Mr. Lang's home, lawfully. And my memory is, and the record will reflect this at the hearing on the motion in limine, that the state had sought to prevent us from soliciting that testimony during the course of the trial and cited several statutes that otherwise might provide an exception for law enforcement to be in a home without a warrant. The position that we took at the time was that that's all fine and good, but it's still a jury question. It's a factual question as applied to the law. The court, in my recollection, said that it was a legal determination on whether or not law enforcement was there lawfully, and therefore did not allow us to pursue that in front of the jury. Again, my recollection. That perspective, I think, cannot be true. If that were true, there would be no need for this exception to be carved out in 704.2a sub 2 sub c for the lawful performance of duties that cannot then an exception to whether or not there's a presumption that the force was reasonable. We ask juries all the time to make a determination on whether or not something's lawful. That's the purpose of a trial. The court provides the law, and they apply the facts. They apply the facts to the law to determine if the actions of an individual were lawful. It's particularly true in the area of self-defense, whether or not an individual is justified. The court is well aware that there are several legal exceptions to the self-defense claim or to the justification claim, but they're still tested by a jury. It's also no different, your honor. It's also no different, your honor, than malice of forethought. The instruction that the state pointed out in their closing does say that malice of forethought can be inferred or deemed from somebody's unlawful act. We ask jurors all the time to determine if something is lawful. And so we believe that the inability to pursue that and the court's determination that it's a question of law and not fact as to whether or not law enforcement was there lawfully and to whether or not the exception under 704.2a existed was error. And we believe that Mr. Lange was entitled to a new trial because of that ruling as it relates to paragraph two in my motion and the subparagraphs that are under, I would simply rely on the arguments and closings as it relates to whether or not there is substantial evidence to the elements of those offenses. Thank you. [00:12:01] Speaker 1: Does the state wish to be heard beyond its filed written resistance? [00:12:08] Speaker 3: Just briefly, your honor. Your honor, the argument raised today by Mr. Hawbaker, the question, if under the stand your ground exception, if the jury is deciding what is lawful or unlawful, then it becomes a question, did the officers, did they have exigent circumstances, hot pursuit? That's a legal question. The state would argue that's why the court was able to make that determination if that is raised as a legal question and not for the jury to decide. Otherwise, the jury is trying to determine what is exigent circumstances, what is hot pursuit. The code section, the way it's written, the state believes the interpretation is if a law enforcement officer is at somebody's house but is not on duty and is there doing something else, then that would not apply. But when law enforcement is there at a house trying to make an arrest and performing their duties as a law enforcement officer, a defendant does not get to stay on your ground law. If that's the case, it wouldn't make any sense. It would be inconsistent with the code section that says even if an arrest is not lawful, if it's an unlawful arrest, a defendant cannot resist. And there's a reason for that. We don't want defendants attacking law enforcement officers and determining whether an arrest is lawful or not. That's for a court to decide at a later time. So we stand by the resistance and our arguments that we made during the motion limit. Thank you. [00:13:42] Speaker 1: Well, I've had a chance, obviously, to look at the written pleadings prior to today. The two issues before the court or the motion is based on two grounds. One is that there was an error of law as submitted by the court and the failing of the court to instruct on issues of justification or self-defense. And the second issue was simply that the jury's verdict itself was contrary to the weight of the evidence as it relates to justification or self-defense. Similar to the events of the evening of April 9th. It started with count three, and so the court's going to address the defense as it's blanket asserted to counts one, two and three. And so for the assault on a peace officer with intent to inflict serious injury, the court cited at the time of the motion in liminey a number of cases without reciting those similar to the Wedgwood case. The defendant claims here that he acted with justification in a person is or may use reasonable force to prevent injury to that person, which would include the defendant. Um, and that's known as justification, reasonable force is only the amount of force a reasonable person would find necessary to use under the circumstances to prevent injury. And the state must prove that the defendant was not acting with justification. The issue here is, as asserted, is that the court failed to instruct, um, on justification. As the, uh, Iowa case law is clear, um, an instruction on self-defense or justification is not required unless the evidence from any source taken as a whole raises a substantial issue of self-defense. And I cited previously in the motion in liminey the reigns decision, as well as, uh, state versus Caesar, which I'm not sure I cited earlier, founded 585 Northwest second 192, the Iowa Supreme court case of 1998. Ultimately, uh, the cases that I cited previously, uh, suggest that substantial evidence from any sources necessary. Um, the burden to disprove justification, uh, does rest on the state. However, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the record contains sufficient evidence to support an instruction on this issue. There's zero evidence in the record, whether it was before the jury or within any offer of proof, uh, to substantiate the minimum threshold to, to instruct, uh, on self-defense. Um, as it relates to count three, I'm not going to go through, uh, the facts, uh, of this case, uh, record speaks for itself as far as what transpired, uh, between the defendant and, uh, the reserve officer, uh, knee house. Similar to how I found at the time of the motion in liminey, um, this court, uh, fines and believes that justification or self-defense has never applied to lawful actions of law enforcement. The recent introduction of stand your ground, uh, to justification defenses does nothing to change the court's interpretation of the application of justification. Uh, to lawful actions of law enforcement, uh, uh, to be clear, my, uh, uh, for the record, um, I've emphasized, uh, the phrase, uh, lawful action intentionally. Uh, the defense has raised the issue suggesting that the actions of law enforcement in this pending matter were not lawful. Um, the court, however, believes that, uh, that type of determination as the state suggested, that's a matter of law and therefore an issue for the court to determine, not the jury. Again, in the, uh, uh, Lemony, uh, hearing, uh, the court cited 804 Iowa code section 804.12, uh, regarding the use of force in resisting an arrest. And a person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest, which the person knows is being made either by a peace officer, uh, even if the person believes the arrest is unlawful or the arrest is in fact unlawful. Uh, as it relates to the conduct of, uh, reserve officer Cody Niehaus, uh, in count three, the court, uh, has found and continues to find, uh, that his behavior was, uh, his behavior and conduct throughout his entire interaction with the defendant was lawful in every sense of the word. Uh, and in, uh, and in every sense of the self-defense or justification analysis. And so consequently, as a matter of law, uh, the court has found and continues to find, uh, that self-defense is not applicable. Regarding counts one and two, first and foremost, similar to count three, uh, there's the requirement of substantial evidence from any source necessary to submit the instruction. And again, the defendant bears that burden inconsistent with count three. There's zero evidence in the record, uh, whether it's before the jury or within any offer of proof to substantiate the minimal threshold to instruct on self-defense or justification, uh, for counts one and two. Similar to count three, the court finds and believes that justification or self-defense has never applied to the lawful actions of lawful actions. Of law enforcement and those being the officers, uh, at the scene of the defendant's home. Again, the introduction of stand your ground in 2017 has done nothing to change the court's interpretation of the application of justification to lawful actions of law enforcement. Again, similar to count three, uh, the court finds that Iowa code section 804.12 is applicable. Additionally, uh, Iowa code sections 804.7 and 804.15 are relevant and applicable to the court's ruling. And the court finds that the court's ruling is applicable to the court's jurisdiction. And the court finds that the court's jurisdiction in the court's jurisdiction. arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to the peace officer and without a warrant for a public offense committed or attempted in the peace officer's presence or where a public offense has been committed and the peace officer has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested committed it or where the peace officer has reasonable ground for believing that an indictable public offense had been committed and has reasonable ground for believing that the person to be arrested had committed it Iowa code section 804.15 states that if law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person whom the officer is authorized to arrest is present on any private premise or premises the officer may upon identifying the officer as such demand that the officer be admitted to such premises for the purposes of making the arrest and if such demand is not promptly complied with the officer may there upon enter such premises to make the arrest using such force as reasonably necessary again the implementation of 2017 stand your ground statutory provisions pursuant to the code cited by the defense under 704.2 way does spell out the justification of the defendant for the purposes of the chapter a person is presumed reasonably to reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to avoid injury or risk to one's life in either of the following circumstances and it spells out under sub paragraph a from the perspective of the defendant the person against whom the force is used meaning law enforcement at the time it was used in doing so was doing any of the following unlawfully entering by force or stealth of his dwelling or unlawfully removing or attempting to unlawfully remove another person against that person's will from the dwelling and again as i've indicated i think iowa law is clear i believe it's a legal question to the issue of whether that was in this case unlawful the presumption set forth for the defendant to rely upon that does not apply under iowa code section 704.2 a sub paragraph 2 under sub paragraph 2a if the person using defensive force is engaged in the criminal offense or is attempting to escape from the scene of a criminal offense that the person has committed or is using the dwelling place of business or employment or occupied vehicle to further that criminal offense under subsection 3 doesn't apply if the person against whom the force is used is a peace officer who has entered or attempting to enter the dwelling in the lawful performance of that peace officer's official duties so the issues here are whether sergeant smith and the others were quote unlawfully end quote entering and as to whether the exception under subsection 2 would apply whether sergeant smith and the others were within the quote lawful performance end quote of their official duties in the court's opinion are questions of fact or excuse me of law not fact the defense or excuse me the prosecutions also set forth other exceptions such as exigent circumstances and hot pursuit it's the court's belief at the time and it's the court's belief today that the jury cannot be expected to be versed in all aspects of constitutional law whether it be under the u.s. constitution or the iowa constitution pertaining to search and seizure those issues as to whether it was lawful or unlawful whether he was in his or all of the officers were within their lawful performance of their duties are questions of law to be examined by the court so as it relates to the conduct of sergeant smith and the others in counts one and two the court found and continues to find that their behavior was lawful in every sense of the justification analysis and that they were within their lawful performance of their duties and so consequently as i have ruled previously i continue to rule that it was appropriate to deny the defense the defendant's request for the submission of self-defense and that it was not applicable in this particular scenario so in short the record was lacking to support the submission of an instruction and legally speaking it was not supported switching gears then to the second prong um the defendant raises the issue of uh sufficiency of the evidence counsel cited to the rule um both counsel are aware of the ellis case found at 578 northwest second 655 uh iowa 1998 case that uh as far as grounds are concerned uh one of the grounds recognized in uh the rule governing motions for a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to the weight excuse me contrary to the evidence which now means contrary to the weight of the evidence and so when the court is faced with the motion for new trial alleging that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence the district court is no longer uh viewing the evidence in the light most favorable uh to the non-moving party or in this case the prosecution but rather the court must consider whether the great or the greater amount of credible evidence supports one side or the other except in extraordinary cases in which the evidence preponderates or outweighs heavily against the verdict the trial court should not lessen the jury's role as the primary trial of facts by granting a new trial and the court should not disturb the jury's findings where the evidence they considered is nearly balanced or is such that different minds could fairly arrive at different conclusions uh that's again language from the supreme court of iowa from 2006 the shanahan decision found at 712 northwest second 121 this court concurs wholeheartedly with all of the assertions set forth by the state uh within its resistance and for the purposes of today's record it incorporates them into today's findings in short the greater amount of credible evidence supports the jury's findings contrary to uh the assertions i made before uh when their reasonable minds could differ uh it's the court's position uh this isn't even a close call um the greater amount of credible evidence supports the jury's findings in count one that the defendant acted with premeditation that the defendant had the specific intent to kill and the defendant acted with malice aforethought as it relates to uh count two a greater amount of credible evidence supports the jury's findings that the defendant acted with the intent to kill the occupants of that bearcat and regarding count three that the greater amount of credible evidence supports the jury's findings that the defendant intended to cause a serious injury to reserve officer cody kneehouse and so consequently the defendant's motion for new trial is denied on all grounds counsel um we're going to switch gears here to the sentencing phase are both parties prepared to proceed at this time with that we need a recess where do we stand [00:29:17] Speaker 4: the state is prepared your honor [00:29:20] Speaker 2: we're ready judge [00:29:22] Speaker 1: all right i uh was i had ample time last night uh to look through the the submissions that were provided last night um and there were written uh victim impact statements provided at that time um i recognize the iowa code uh suggests victim impact statements are not evidence they're not subject to cross-examination that the victims were to testify personally um nonetheless i want to know how the state intends to proceed and when they intend to do so i know that the the way the court has traditionally proceeded with in sentencing hearings appears to be at least with our forthcoming changes in the rules going to change those aren't in effect yet but clearly that suggests at least that there's some debate as to the procedure so i'm going to ask counsel how they want to proceed um starting with the state ordinarily i'd ask if there's any evidence um the state wishes to present uh i'd ordinarily ask the state's recommendation for sentencing um if there are victim impact statements that are to be read to the court i'd normally start with those but again i know there are differing minds as to when that is to occur so what's the state's position [00:31:03] Speaker 3: your honor there was a house file and i can pull it that i think was passed last year indicating that the victim impact statements that i know the rule hasn't changed yet but the house file indicated the victim impact statements can be read after allocution so the state as a guest is preferring the recommendation would be the state would make its recommendation give the defendant his opportunity for allocution and then we have six victim impact statements that will be read two will be read by the victim witness coordinator [00:31:39] Speaker 1: and are they verbatim the ones that were filed with the clerk last night or prior to i should say read last night prior to today [00:31:46] Speaker 3: that's my understanding your honor all right [00:31:48] Speaker 1: any problem with proceeding that way mr hawbaker okay so to be clear then are there any other pending motions before the court before we switch gears does the state have any evidence that it wishes to present prior to making recommendations no your honor what is the state's recommendation [00:32:08] Speaker 4: thank you your honor please the court defense counsel the state is recommending for count one a life term of incarceration the state is recommending a sentence of an indeterminate term of incarceration of up to 25 years subject to a 70 percent minimum required service before any possibility of parole as to count three the state is requesting that the court enter a sentence of an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed five years with a fine of 10,245 dollars plus all applicable surcharges for all counts as to count one the state believes that section 910.3 b the 150,000 dollars civil penalty applies here and would request that the court order that civil penalty payable to sergeant jim smith's widow kathy smith the defendant would also be subject to dean dna profiling per chapter 81 for all of these counts due to the fact that defendants choices and actions were in regards to three separate incidents with more than three victims the state is asking that these sentences run consecutively thank you [00:33:59] Speaker 1: the defendant's recommendation none your honor mr lang you have the right to make any statements on your own behalf it's known as your right of allocution it's an opportunity for you to tell me anything that you want to tell me about these charges or what you believe the appropriate sentence should be you're not required to say anything at all but if you want to tell me anything this would be your chance to do so [00:34:40] Speaker 5: no sir okay [00:34:49] Speaker 1: um switching gears then to the state uh [00:34:55] Speaker ?: uh [00:34:55] Speaker 1: they're going to read it let's have them come up even though it's technically not subject to examination i'm going to have them come up to the witness stand and we'll have them read it uh for those of you who intend to read it um just fair warning i'm going to ask you to make sure that your conscience is going to be a good one of the that you're conscious of the fact that you're reading and you generally read faster than uh your normal manner of speech so we are trying to make a record so when you're reading uh i understand this is an emotional thing but just be cognizant of your speed state let's go ahead and have a seat i'm not going to swear you in but do me a favor see the left-hand mic yep dead center of the base hit that till you see a red light in front of you all right state your name for the record please [00:35:55] Speaker 5: sarah harms all right thank you please proceed the first statement i'm going to read is on behalf of cody knee house dear grundy county court i am cody knee house the officer who was attacked by the defendant michael lang on april 9th 2021 when i went on duty that day i was excited to work and was hoping for a good shift i would have never dreamt that my shift would go the way that it did when i attempted to stop the defendant and the defendant took off i had no idea what his intentions were when we took off south of town i thought the defendant was heading to a boulder construction work site i was completely confused when the defendant pulled over on that gravel road i was even more confused at the defendant's statements to me as he exited his truck Being the caring officer that I am, I immediately got out of my patrol car to find out what was going on and why the defendant led me on a chase. I was caught off guard when the defendant started grabbing at me and telling me to pull my gun. I tried to do what I could at the time. When the defendant knocked my taser out of my hands, I knew I was in trouble. I thank God all the time that Dorothy rolled up in his truck when he did, because I truly believe the defendant would have surely killed me that day. When the defendant began to charge me and I tased him, I couldn't believe what was happening to me. When I fell to the ground and the defendant was hitting me, I tried my best to defend myself. I was hoping backup would be here any second. And that's when he began to choke me. It felt like time stopped for me. What was a few seconds to me felt like minutes. As I realized what was happening to me, I remember thinking that I was going to die and that my father would never get the news and not, or would get the news and not even know why. These actions have caused my life to change. These actions have caused my life to change. It's caused stress in my life and emotional trauma. This attack on me was 100% avoidable. It was senseless. All over a $114 ticket. Many lives have been ruined. I asked the court today to impose the maximum sentences allowed by law for all three charges that the defendant was found guilty of. I asked this so that justice may be served, not only to the Smith family, but to myself and Agent Ocean as well. Let today be a deterrent to anyone that wants to murder police officers. Let it be seen today that the courts will not draw back against such evil. Let justice prevail today. Thank you for your time. The next statement I'll be reading is from Mary Smith Aiken, who is Jim's mother. On 4-9-2021, you and you alone made the vicious and deliberate decision to murder my youngest son, Sergeant James Kyle Smith. A man who dedicated his life on earth to saving others. You and you alone chose to take his life. Jim's life of 51 years on earth were filled with huge accomplishments, filled with God's love. The Holy Spirit working through Jim to enrich so many lives, to change so many lives. Introduce God to so many lives. Brought back direction to many hurting human beings. Brought many back into God's graces and love. Brought to see the future in front of them, allowing them to become good and caring citizens. Jim, very wisely and guided by God, I am sure, chose a perfect and wonderful partner to become his wife and the mother of his two beautiful children. You and you alone took that life of this family patriarch, this adored husband, and this adored father. Sergeant James Kyle Smith was a very important part of our family to his brother, Jeffrey, and his sister, Michelle. Adored by his father, Everett, whom he helped care for and lost when he was at a young age of 22. The year he graduated from college, he was also a very involved person, an important part of his stepfather, Tom's life for the past 26 years. And to myself, an extremely proud, blessed and honored mother. Jim was my youngest son. My rock. My best friend. Jim was my advisor, my spiritual director, my strength, my courage, my joy, my counselor, an example to our family to admire and look up to. Jim was a true blessing, a true role model to all our immediate and extended family. You and you alone made this unthinkable decision to end his life, this very special life, sent to earth by God to be an example to so many. You ended his life on earth and you did change our lives on earth. But you are not able to end the influence and the example my youngest son, Jim, leaves for all of us. He lives in our hearts and our minds always and will be passed down to our next generations. You chose to end the life of my youngest son, my best friend, supporter, counselor, advisor, role model, creator of great joy and laughter, and so, so many memories. I pray that you have many minutes in your long life ahead of you to fully understand the consequences of your evil deed. Mary Smith Aiken, mother of God's gift, Sergeant James Kyle Smith, number 462, Iowa State Trooper. [00:43:32] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:43:38] Speaker 4: Your Honor, Michelle Smith. [00:43:47] Speaker 1: Would you prefer to read it from there or would you want to come up here? I, okay. Okay. Would you please just state your name for the record? [00:44:24] Speaker 6: Michelle Smith-Succomill. [00:44:29] Speaker 1: Can you pull the mic up close to you, please? [00:44:32] Speaker 6: Which one? This? [00:44:33] Speaker 1: Preferably the red one, yep. [00:44:36] Speaker 6: Sorry. [00:44:36] Speaker 1: No worries. No need to apologize. I just want to make sure we can hear you. Thank you. Whenever you're ready. Thank you. [00:44:41] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:44:43] Speaker 6: For 53 years, April 9th, was always a day to celebrate our daddy's birthday. Even after his passing, we would still recognize and celebrate as it was the day God created our amazing dad. We take tributes of some of the things he enjoyed to the cemetery, tell him stories about our children, family, or work, and pray with him. That is exactly what my brother Jim did that day before going on duty. Not even imagining or the thought, I am sure, that he would be reunited with our dad in heaven that very day. As of April 9th, 2021, this day will always be remembered as the day our world stopped. As we heard that Jim had been tragically, viciously, and senselessly taken from all of us way too soon. That day, that cowardly act, Kathy lost her soulmate. Jasmine and Xander lost their father and best friend. Mom lost her youngest son, her confidant. Jeff and I lost our brother and role model. My kids lost their amazing Uncle Jim. Many aunts and uncles lost their incredible nephew. A church lost a servant. The men and women of the Iowa State Patrol lost their brother, friend, and leader. And the world lost a true hero. Sergeant James Smith, to most, was Jim, Jimbo, little brother to me. We grew up the closest of friends, always having each other's back, enjoying youth group together, helping each other through child and teen problems that arose, and even being mistaken for twins. When we both worked at Westdale Mall at the same time, our high school years. Our older brother, Jeff, Jim, and I grew up playing Star Wars, Star Trek, and yes, especially superheroes. Luckily for me, there was a female character that I could be so that we could all play together. Jim gave me the nickname Mouse when we were younger. I like to say it is because I was little and shy like a mouse, but that wasn't his reason. All of my family to this day know me by mouse, and that was all Jim ever called me. I don't even think Xander and Jaslyn knew I had another name until they were older. Our upbringing was that of a loving family with absolutely amazing parents. We were a close family growing up. We enjoyed many things together, like church, vacations, bike rides, working at the Sweet Corn Festival, game nights, pizza parties during the Iowa Hawkeye and Minnesota Viking Games, and much, much laughter and love. Jim grew into this incredible, amazing, strong man before my eyes. Graduating college, marrying the love of his life, graduating from the academy, becoming an incredible father to my nephew and niece, fulfilling his dream of working in law enforcement, a servant of our Father God, and a role model to many. He loved his job. It truly was his calling. He believed the law was for everyone to follow, no matter who you were. He loved to arrest the bad guys who broke those laws, and would often chuckle as he told stories of stops that he made, and how surprised someone was when they got pulled over, or as they tried to hide drugs or alcohol as he would walk up. He always tried to impress on others, especially those he arrested, that it's not too late to turn your life around, as he drove them to jail. He knew, and he wanted others to know, that our Father God is always listening, and he forgives you and your sins when you ask for it. Jim always tried to tell and show everyone the value of prayer, to live our life in a God-like way, to know the love our Father God has for us, and to be a servant to him. Jim was great at his job, and loved being a part of the Iowa State Patrol and tactical team. He was very protractive of his coworkers, and was always the first one through the door, if they needed to enter or breach, telling me he wanted his team behind him, to protect them as much as possible, if danger was right inside that door. And that is exactly what he was doing that fateful day. And he would not have had it any other way. Survivor's guilt is a real and painful thing. And because of this man, I live with this every minute of every single day. And more often than not, it consumes me. Why this tragedy? Why Jim? He had so many people in his life that truly needed him. My sister-in-law, my nephew and niece, my mom, my stepdad, my brother and I, extended family, his church, his Iowa State Patrol family, his community, and many, many others. Why did this man make this choice to end my brother's life that day? Yet I sit here, with feeling help, grown children, no spouse, and no one that relies on me. But because of this ruthless act, Jim is the one that is gone. I remember our last phone call and our last text messages. I live with the guilt that we didn't force ourselves to make, the time to hang out more often. It seemed like we always had these schedules that didn't mesh or things that would come up. I hope that he always knew how proud I was of him, how much I truly admired him, that he meant the world to me, and above all else, I loved him. I will forever miss the phone calls and voicemails that always started the same way. Hey, Mouse, it's Jim. Hey, Mouse, it's Jim, your brother. The great stories he would share, the way he lit up when he talked about his kids, or how Kathy was always referred to as my wife or my bride. But most of all, his humor. He could make you laugh so hard and for so long with the best jokes, funny stories, and the wittiest comebacks ever. He always seemed to know when a joke or funny story was just what you needed. I will never forget his voice calling me Mouse or that contagious laugh of his. This man selfishly chose to take my brother's life that day, at that moment, when he had so many opportunities to cooperate without the act of violence. But he chose to stay in that house, and I believe he had it in his head that someone was going to get hurt that day. I am here to tell you that you may have taken my brother's life that day, but you won't, and you cannot take away his soul, his amazing spirit, the love he had for his family and friends, his superhero powers, our memories, the lessons and messages he shared with everyone and are still being shared to this day, and the seeds of faith that he helped plant in those who were in need. which are growing in many. My brother not only touched and changed many lives here on earth, he is from heaven as well, and his legacy, who he is and what he stood for, lives on, and as we all know, heroes live forever. The fact that we are even in the position where we are writing victim impact statements makes me mad and emotional at the same time. For you, and you alone, made decisions on April 9th, 2021, that you knew would lead to someone getting hurt. you and you alone chose to take a life that day. You and you alone are responsible for your own actions. You and you alone are the reason you will spend the rest of your life behind bars. I hope you spend every day reliving what you did, thinking about the amazing person you took away from us, and the realization how different life would be if you didn't make the decisions you did that day. I want you to always be here in your head the name Sergeant Jim Smith. My hope and what I would like to see is that you serve your sentences consecutively, as these three amazing men deserve to see justice served, and you deserve to live all three guilty verdicts one after another after another. Sergeant Jim Smith's legacy lives on, and it always will, as he will continue touching lives forever. [00:55:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:55:46] Speaker 4: Your honor, the state has Sergeant Jim Smith's daughter, Jaslyn Smith. [00:56:13] Speaker 1: Can you just state your name for the record for me? [00:56:15] Speaker 7: Jaslyn Smith. [00:56:17] Speaker 1: How do you spell that for me? [00:56:19] Speaker 7: J-A-Z-L-Y-N. [00:56:23] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:56:30] Speaker 7: This man took away my best friend. My dad was the most comedic, selfless, encouraging, understanding, and God-honoring person I have ever and will ever meet. He knew and understood me better than anyone else and that we should have had so much more time together. Dad was supposed to be there to watch me graduate and move me into the college that we prayed I could go to. He was supposed to interview my first boyfriend and walk me down the aisle. He should be here when my brother and I each start our own family, and he should have been able to retire and finally write his book. Instead, Mom, Xander, and I are stuck here without him. Dad doesn't get to be here to watch me grow up. He will never get to meet the friends I've made at college that he prayed God would provide since I'd be hours away from him for the first time. When I get married someday, I am stuck looking at an empty seat where my best friend should have been able to sit. I will be forced to raise kids in the future without them knowing the person who would have spoiled them the most. And I am stuck with countless inside jokes that are now one-sided. I remember a specific thing my dad told me and my brother during one of our many times playing catch with him outside. we tended to get some good conversations in during these fun moments. He said, I would trade all of our possessions for one more day with my dad. At the time, Xander and I were very young, and I recall thinking, really? All of our possessions? Where would we live? What would we eat or where? And I really just didn't understand it. But I do now. And that is the kind of emptiness that this man left in our family. I would give every possession for another father-daughter Justice League lunch date. Another ride home from youth group where we would have weekly discussions about life. Another time teaming up to give a Bible lesson. Another hour to sit in his room chatting about our days when he got home from work. Another opportunity to hear him cheer at my performances in games. Another Audie Murphy cowboy movie night. And another bat cycle obstacle course race. Anything to see his smile and hear his contagious laugh again. My dad was taken from us way too soon by a stupid, selfish act with infinite repercussions. But that doesn't mean that we don't know what type of man he was. And if I live my life even half as incredible as he did, then I would be thankful. He could make anyone and everyone laugh. He gave the best advice. He was the greatest teacher. and he was truly the best comedian to write a prose piece with for competition. But most importantly, dad was always pursuing a deeper relationship with God, our Heavenly Father, which led him to plant seeds of the Christian faith everywhere he went. dad and I had an inside joke about the day our laughter died. I have no idea where that came from. Just another random sentence we started saying to make each other laugh. We would say it with so much extra drama and acting behind the phrase to enhance the comedy. And I'm sure that those who knew how we were around one another aren't surprised about this. But I remember thinking on April 9th of last year, as I sat in that room in the hospital, that it honestly was the day my laughter died. But that's not true. I may have only gotten 18 years on earth with my best friend. But I know that I will get an eternity with him in heaven. And that is the truth that I and the rest of my family hold close as we navigate the rest of our days here without dad. Thank you. [01:01:27] Speaker 4: Kathy Smith, Sergeant Jim Smith's wife. [01:01:36] Speaker 1: Say your name for me. [01:02:02] Speaker 8: Katherine Jean Marie Smith. [01:02:04] Speaker 1: Katherine with a K. [01:02:05] Speaker 8: With a K. [01:02:06] Speaker 1: Thank you. [01:02:14] Speaker 8: On the night of April 9th, 2021, this man's evil, selfish actions ripped our family apart. My best friend and only man I ever loved was taken from me and our children in a way I never imagined. My world was turned upside down that night and still is today. And still is today. I remember the banging on our door. The words I hear over and over again. Jim's been shot. We need to get you to the hospital. Or I'm sorry, we did all we could do. A sudden wave of numbness and terror rushed in. It had to be a nightmare. I just couldn't wake up. I was surrounded by doctors, nurses, officers, family, and I still felt completely alone and shut down. I have never experienced grief so deeply before. How will I live without my husband? Jim was always there for me and for our kids. Our future dreams and plans together will never be. I didn't blame God for what happened. Evil people do evil things. I only blame this man. Not his parents or his family or any officer there that night. Just him. He must have a consequence for taking Jim's life. And I'm thankful he will spend the rest of his life in prison. This man who clearly hates law enforcement, who laughed about killing my husband, won't be able to hurt anyone else. And for that, I am grateful. Jim was granted some sense of justice, but he's no longer with us here on earth. My family, our family, and my heart is forever broken. I feel robbed. We were supposed to grow old together. I am now forced to live out the rest of my days without him, and I do truly feel lost. In my mind, it wasn't supposed to be this way. But I know God has a plan and will use this horrible tragedy to further his kingdom. Jim was my soulmate. Last August, we would have celebrated 28 years of marriage and 30 years together. I miss his smile, his laugh, his guidance and wisdom, his kind words, and his arms around me. He comforted me when I was sad, loved me unconditionally, listened to me when I needed to talk, made me laugh with his incredible sense of humor, taught our children to follow Christ. And he was the spiritual leader in our family. Jim loved us and was intentional with his time. He didn't wait to live. And I am thankful for that because I will treasure all the memories we made together and hold them for as long as I live. Jim dedicated his life serving God and protecting people. That's who Jim was. He put God first, his family second, and his job third. He started and ended each day on his knees in prayer. He always had the words to say or not to say because he relied on God for everything. He loved being an Iowa State Trooper and part of the tactical team because he desired to make a difference. He was a humble man who read his Bible daily to grow closer with God. Jim was the real deal. He was not a funny Christian. He made Jesus his Lord and Savior, his boss, and wanted to please God in every aspect of his life. Jim spoke God's truth to everyone he came in contact with. He was a man of integrity who treated people fairly and with respect. That is how God instructed him to live. Loving God with his heart, soul, and mind was Jim's purpose and it showed like a bright light for all to see. God says, let your light shine before others in Matthew 5.16. I loved him for the man he was and the man he strived to be daily. I have never met nor will ever meet another man like Jim. God created each of us to glorify him. Jim knew that and shared his faith with others planting seeds wherever he went. Jim lived to please God and the world is a better place because of him. Jim would often tell us and remind us that God will allow us to go through the valley of life. We will have bad times but God never abandons us. He is always there walking with us and leading us to better days. Even though I may not be ready to forgive this man for the pain he has caused us. It doesn't mean that God won't forgive him someday if he truly repents. That is between him and God. As Christians, we know there is a better, there is something better to live for than living for ourselves. Maybe someday, before the end of your life, you will seek God and his forgiveness because that's what Jim would have wanted. [01:09:28] Speaker 4: Your Honor, the state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith, Sergeant Jim. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:09:50] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:13] Speaker 1: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:15] Speaker 9: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:16] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:17] Speaker 1: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:19] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:25] Speaker 9: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:43] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:44] Speaker 9: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:10:59] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:11:00] Speaker 9: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:11:09] Speaker ?: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. [01:11:10] Speaker 9: The state's last statement is to be read by Xander Smith. And I only saw hatred and death. Evil took my dad that night. I no longer have him here with me. My family and I have been in a state of immense grief, that of which we don't have the words to describe. Mr. Lange, I need you to understand that your choice affected not just my dad, but the hundreds who love him and the hundreds more who will never get to meet him. My mom is without her soulmate. My sister and I are without our best friend. We have relatives who lost a son or a brother. Co-workers who lost a friend, a leader, and a brother in blue. But there are more who never got to meet him. Miranda, my girlfriend and soon-to-be wife, will never have her father-in-law. And she was forced to meet my family on the same night of our greatest tragedy. And the children that we will one day have will have nothing more than the stories of what once was. The people who would have met my dad have been deprived of meeting a great and godly man. The best man I know and will ever know. I wish each of you in this room had gotten to know my dad and the kind of man he was. However, since that opportunity was taken from some of you, today I am going to tell you a little bit about it. Nothing I can say to you today will be able to show you the full picture. But I hope I can give each of you a snapshot. My dad was and is my hero. But it is not because of the way he died, but rather the way that he lived. He taught me right from wrong and explained what it meant to treat others with dignity. It was my dad along with my mom who taught me about God and his son Jesus Christ who saved me. It was my dad who taught me a love of justice and to protect the innocent. He was an officer of the law, but he felt his greatest calling was to be an officer of the Lord. He poured into everyone he met. I watched as he cared for each person he encountered. His co-workers, his friends, his family, but also those he had sitting in the back of his squad car. He shared with them that they had a purpose and that they had a chance to choose a better life for themselves. That they were worth something. This was his mission field. My dad was more than just my father. He was my best buddy. The last text I sent him, I had said that I love you best buddy. Is what we had called one another. He truly was my best friend. We lived life together and I will forever cherish the moments that we had of watching action movies, playing video games, playing action figures, talking about life, and most of all playing catch together in the backyard. I took those for granted. He was my leader, my friend, my confidant, my hero. He was the one that I wanted to hang out with, to laugh with, to live life with. A life that was horrifically cut short. He was forever my best buddy. He was also my brother in Christ. So because of that, I have one more thing that each of you in this room need to hear. And that includes you, Michael. The tragedy, this tragedy has brought us to lament before the only comfort that we have. God. God says in his word that vengeance is his and that he is a God of justice. Because of this, my family and I can have a sense of peace from the Lord in the guilty verdict being served against this man who destroyed my family. And killed not just my dad, but my best friend. It is for this reason that we request the court to sentence him to life in prison without the opportunity for parole. For he prevented my dad from living out the rest of his life. And I wish I could say that this next part is going to be easy for me to share. It should be. But that would be a lie. The Bible says that we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Which means, so have I. While my sins may look different from yours, I still needed Jesus to provide the grace and mercy that I didn't deserve. It is out of the grace and mercy that God has given me that I share this next part. Mr. Lang, I do feel anger for the evil that you have done. However, I also know that my dad taught me so much more than of God's righteous anger. He taught me of his mercy too. One of my dad's favorite verses was Micah 6a. What does the Lord require of you but to seek justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? We spoke earlier about the justice of God, but that same God is also a God of mercy. That I heard my dad say so often, and that you are meant to hear today. I don't really know you, but I do know something about you. I know that you have not been perfect, and that you have rebelled against the God who made you. And this goes for all in the room. Like Mr. Lang today, we will each be held accountable for our crimes and failures. But rather than leaving us in our sin, God sent Jesus Christ, who didn't fail or mess up in life. But lived a perfect life of obedience. He took the criminal's place and died for us so that we may turn to him and find life. My dad would agree that Jesus is the hero that we need. This level of mercy is beyond our comprehension. God loves you. And just as my dad lived out, each of you deserves to have the chance to accept him. And that includes Mr. Lang. As my dad said, there still remains consequences for your action on earth. You do deserve to be punished for your evil. But I know, and my dad knew, that eternally, after life on earth, God's grace was given to all who choose to accept him. If you quit pursuing evil and instead pursue Jesus, you can avoid the internal punishment that is hell. I know without hesitation that my dad is in heaven now. And that I will one day see him again. And that does bring me peace. I am trying to learn how to forgive you. But I know that if you repent, God will forgive you in an instant. For the sake of my dad, each of you have a choice to make today. And that includes you, Mr. Lang. Each of you can either repent and turn to God, or continue sitting in the judgment seat. It's your call. [01:18:41] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. [01:18:49] Speaker 1: Are there any other victim impact statements? [01:18:54] Speaker 7: No, your honor. [01:18:55] Speaker 1: At this time, does the defense know of any legal reasons why the defendant should not be sentenced at this time? [01:19:13] Speaker ?: No, your honor. [01:19:14] Speaker 1: The court, knowing of no reason that it is hereby ordered and adjudged, Mr. Lang, that you're guilty of the class A felony murder in the first degree, the class B felony attempt to commit murder, and the class D felony assault on a peace officer with intent to inflict serious injury. The only case or count that a fine is applicable is count three, and the court will impose a $1,025 fine in count three. The law requires, in count one, that you be sentenced to life in prison. In count two, the court will impose a 25-year sentence. That sentence will carry a mandatory minimum of 70% before you would be eligible for parole. And count three will carry a five-year term of incarceration. Attorney fees will be entered as a judgment in this case. Court costs will be entered as a judgment. You'll be ordered to submit a DNA sample to the state of Iowa for further testing. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 724.31A, it will be provided notice that you will be forever prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. As it relates to counts two and three, under Iowa Code section 901.5, you're on notice that the sentence imposed there does not necessarily mean you'll have to serve that amount of time. It can be reduced by nearly one-half for educational credit, good time credit, and work credit. That would be subject to the parole board somewhat moot in light of the imposition of the sentence in count one. In that same vein, given the fact that it is life in prison, it is somewhat moot. I do believe in considering the circumstances of this case that the imposition of consecutive terms is appropriate. And though moot, I am required to state, for the purposes of the record, the basis for the imposition of consecutive terms. I have heard throughout the duration of the trial here, listening to the victim impact statements. The court had observed and noted, and frankly I have heard echoed throughout the victim impact statements here today, the other one. The other two terms that I observed and noted, the terms evil, malicious, senseless, have been uttered throughout, and it's the court's position, and the court concurs with the other observations. From the onset of your initial contact with the reserve officer, you had an evil and malicious intent. And you demonstrated that to each and every victim of counts one, two, and three. Your behavior as you were confronted, or as you frankly confronted him. He never had even the opportunity to exit his vehicle before that confrontation started by you. With the reserve officer. Your statements throughout the course of your interactions with him. As you asked him to do you harm. As you dared and threatened him to do you harm. Your interactions with Sergeant Smith and all of the other officers attempting to get you to exit your own home. The fact that you not only shot him once, but you shot him twice. You basically shot a lifeless man in the leg. Your cold, evil comments that you made to the other officers that remained in your home. The threats that you made to those men. Your comments that you made. The jokes. The laughing comments that you made to those individuals in your home. Your actions against the occupants of the Bearcat. The fact that you took again. A 12 gauge slug. And you fired it. And the placement of that slug is in the court's opinion. Was by no mistake. It was clearly with an intent. To do serious harm to kill. The operator. Of that Bearcat. The photograph simply just doesn't do it justice. The testimony doesn't do it justice. But clearly, where that slug was placed in relation to the steering wheel and the operation of that vehicle demonstrates your evil and malicious intent. That was, again, present from the onset of your initial contact with the reserve officer. Right up until the final moments where you subdued to your injuries and the officers took you into custody. [01:25:12] Speaker ?: Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. [01:25:17] Speaker 1: Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 910.3b, you'll be ordered to make restitution in the amount of $150,000 to the widow, Mrs. Smith. Ordinarily, counsel, we'd have discussions about reasonable ability to pay. I don't see a statutorily required financial affidavit. That said, I can tell the prosecution, no. I can schedule this for a hearing if you wish. I'll be more than willing to do so if that's their desire. But in light of the fact that I have imposed the sentence that I have imposed, generally speaking, going to be my findings that he's not going to possess the reasonable ability to pay any restitution in this matter. But statutorily, I'm required to do so. So if the state insists, I will. What's the state's position? [01:26:23] Speaker 3: Your Honor, the state would agree with the fine and the court costs, and I don't know, for court-appointed attorney fees, but I believe the $150,000 restitution would not apply for the reasonable ability to pay, just so it's clear for the record. [01:26:37] Speaker 1: I would agree wholeheartedly. And quite frankly, not up to me anyways. But be that as it may, I would agree with you. And so, to answer my question, your thoughts, if I make a finding now, absent the financial affidavit that he has zero ability to pay, those other issues? [01:26:54] Speaker 3: That would be fine, Your Honor. [01:26:56] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. Does Alan, do you agree? All right. With the state's concurrence, then, I'm assuming the defense does not object to the court's finding as well? True, Your Honor. All right. In pronouncing judgment and sentence, the court has considered the factors set out in Iowa Code Section 907.5, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, your age, your character, and your propensities or chances for reform. Frankly, I've already stated my basis in imposing the consecutive sentences for the same reasons I believe the entire sentence is appropriate. The court has and does find the sentence to be appropriate, again, considering the nature of the offense, your age, and your prior record, but namely, what the court has already set forth. You will have the right to appeal the judgment and sentence that was just pronounced against you by filing notice of appeal within 30 days of today's date with the clerk of this court, by providing a copy to the county attorney and the attorney general of this state. You'll need to do so in a timely fashion. If you fail to do that in a timely fashion, you'd lose your right to do so forever. If you have any questions about that, you can speak to your attorney. Given the fact that the nature of counts one and two, there is no bond, it's pointless to set a bond in count three. Is there anything else the state believes is necessary to be done today? [01:28:43] Speaker 4: No, Your Honor. [01:28:45] Speaker 1: From the defense? Nothing, Your Honor. All right, we'll close the record. Oh, before we do, can you fire it back up? Let me know when you're ready. Mike, we'll get to your people. Mr. Hawbaker, don't run away. I'm going to do one more thing on the record. Okay. Okay, we're back on the record. I did want to point out, counsel, just from the trial, housekeeping matter is all. There were physical exhibits that were submitted. I don't want either side to think that I'm ex parte in the other. I have the big white, white boards that are now in an electronic format and submitted the actual hard photographs that are in electronic format. I'm going to return those back to counsel. I'll ask you to come back into chambers to grab those. The white boards are in the clerk's office downstairs. I don't care what you do with them, but just take them back. The defense had a few paper exhibits as well. Again, I don't care, but just come get them. And again, I believe that's all the physical exhibits that the court took possession of, but were now uploaded and no longer necessary to maintain. All right, now we'll close the record. All right. We'll close the record. [01:30:41] Speaker ?: All right.