Verdicts for three Iowa murder trials where defense claimed paranoid schizophrenia and insanity

Before the Mark Becker trial, Gazette archives since 1992 show three murder trials where the insanity defense was used and defendants suffered from - or it was claimed that they suffered from - paranoid schizophrenia. In all three cases, the defendants were still found guilty of murder.

[October 27, 2005 Gazette]

Appeals court upholds farmer's murder conviction

DES MOINES - The Iowa Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected an appeal of a man convicted in the 2003 slaying of his wife on an Eastern Iowa farm.

David Hering was found guilty in June 2004 of first-degree murder and two counts of attempted murder, and sentenced to life in prison.

He was charged after the Aug. 5, 2003, shooting death of his wife, Lisa, and a subsequent standoff with police at the family's rural Muscatine County farm.

Defense lawyers claimed Hering suffered from a mental illness. An expert witness for the defense testified at trial that Hering suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and met the requirements for being insane at the time of the shooting.

[December 30, 1997 Gazette]

Court upholds conviction of Gary Venzke; Ex-Independence man was competent to be tried in death of wife, appeals panel rules

By Rod Boshart, Gazette Des Moines Bureau

DES MOINES The Iowa Court of Appeals on Monday ruled that convicted murderer Gary Venzke was competent to stand trial for murder and understood the legal consequences when he killed his wife in November 1995.

The appeals panel decided unanimously to uphold Venzke's conviction for first-degree murder in the beating death of his wife, Janine, 47. The former Independence child psychologist is serving a life prison term for the crime.

Venzke's defense lawyer had argued that a Buchanan County judge erred in rejecting an insanity defense and in requiring Venzke to prove he was insane at times other than the day he bludgeoned his wife to death.

However, the appeals panel said the evidence indicated Venzke "knew what he did was wrong and understood the legal consequences as well." The judges said the trial court properly considered surrounding circumstances when trying to determine whether Venzke knew the nature and quality of his acts or could distinguish between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed.

Venzke, 51, was charged with first-degree murder after killing his wife while suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. During his trial, it was stated the disorder caused Venzke to suffer delusions and hallucinations and become convinced that his wife was the biblical Antichrist and that God had selected him to slay the Antichrist.

However, prosecutors countered that Venzke planned the attack and was capable of using his psychological training to manipulate the legal system in attempting to establish an insanity defense.

"The District Court correctly considered Venzke's actions before and after the murder to determine Venzke was capable of understanding killing his wife was wrong," the appeals court stated in its eight-page ruling.

The court noted that Venzke took the day off from work on Nov. 8, 1995, to plan the murder. He gathered the tools he would use and devised the method by which he would kill his wife when she returned from her job as a first-grade teacher.

Court documents noted that Venzke made sure his son went over to a family friend's house after school to spare him from seeing the brutal killing and took time to place the family dog in a storage room so that it would not be traumatized. After murdering his wife by striking her more than 50 times with a wrench and stabbing her with a butcher knife, he ran toward the family's church but shed his bloodstained shirt and stuffed it behind a bush in a neighbor's front yard on the way.

"He later told authorities he assumed he would either be raptured to heaven after the killing or be put in jail," the appeals court ruling stated. "He knew what he did was wrong and understood the legal consequences as well."

[December 1, 1998 Gazette]

Court nixes Rieflin's bid to overturn conviction

By Dick Hogan, Gazette staff writer

The Iowa Court of Appeals on Monday rejected Gerald A. Rieflin Jr.'s bid to overturn his conviction on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of assault with intent to inflict serious injury.

Rieflin's appeal contended he was denied due process when he was tried and sentenced without a further competency determination - and that the court erred by denying Rieflin a rebuttal closing argument.

After nearly a three-week trial, Rieflin was convicted on May 29, 1997, in the Jan. 27, 1995, fatal shootings of Gregory Martin, 40, and Mark Greiner, 36, both of Marion. They were shot while they worked at the Cedar Rapids plant of Ralston Foods, 621 16th St. NE. Rieflin, who worked at Ralston was also convicted of assault with intent to inflict serious injury for wounding two other co-workers, David Sebetka, 40, and Darrell Bahndorf, 49, both of Cedar Rapids.

Rieflin, 39, is serving concurrent life terms plus two years.

In April 1995, a psychologist said Rieflin suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and was incapable of assisting in his defense. Over the next year, two competency hearings and an additional hearing on a motion to reconsider were held. After each hearing, District Judge William Thomas concluded Rieflin was competent to stand trial.

The appeals court noted the Iowa Supreme Court ruled Dec. 18, 1996, that Thomas was not in error in finding Rieflin competent after the two competency hearings.

One appeal point was based on the Jan. 13, 1997, rejection by Thomas of a motion to reconsider a competency hearing and another evaluation of Rieflin.

On that point the appeals court cited comments from defense attorney Alfredo Parrish of Des Moines, telling Thomas that Rieflin's condition varied and another evaluation was needed to determine his mental state then.

"That's the only argument I want to make with regard to that. I don't believe it's necessary to present any evidence or offer any professional statement on the issue," the court noted that Parrish told Thomas.

The appeals court decision said that while it was true several months passed between Rieflin's last evaluation and his trial, once a competency finding is made by a District Court, a defendant is presumed competent until additional contrary evidence is presented by the defendant.

"A mere allegation that a defendant is incompetent does not rebut this presumption," the court ruling said. Rieflin, in this case, did not ask for a hearing to present "contrary evidence" even though given such an opportunity by the district court, the ruling added.

The court also noted Rieflin again asked for a competency hearing and a sentencing delay, alleging incompetency. Thomas denied the motions.

"The same analysis applies" to those motions, the ruling said. "(T)he district court did not deny Rieflin due process."

Monday's ruling also rejected Rieflin's contention that his right to a fair trial was denied because his attorney was not allowed to make a rebuttal closing argument on the insanity issue presented at trial.

Citing past Supreme Court rulings, the appeals court said its review of the record shows that Parrish was able "to thoroughly and completely argue the insanity defense during his closing argument."

--