Kalona man appeals verdict, sentence to state supreme court

KALONA — The Iowa Supreme Court is preparing to consider arguments for a case that started in Washington County in July of 2022, when Kalona man Matthew Meisheid pointing what appeared to be a gun in the air while police responded to a fireworks call at his house.

Meisheid was arrested days after the exchange, in which he pointed the item in the air, and declared, “I’ll shoot a firework, boom, boom, boom, boom,” after denying a neighbor’s complaint about pyrotechnics being launched in the area. Police claim the item in question was a handgun, though during trial, the defendant claimed it was an infrared meat thermometer despite eventually conceding the appearance of a holstered firearm.

Officers executing the search warrant the day of Meisheid’s arrest found 116 guns, cases and bags of ammunition around his residence.

Following a two-day trial in June of 2023, Meisheid was found guilty for two counts of assaulting a peace officer by displaying a dangerous weapon. His sentencing in August of that year landed him two five-year sentences, one for each count of the Class D felony. But he appealed the ruling to the Iowa Court of Appeals the following September, which ruled against him.

The Iowa Supreme Court’s schedule says justices will review Meisheid’s case Sept. 9. While the appellant had requested an oral argument, that request was denied, meaning justices will decide based on the already-existing legal record.

Appellant argues evidence was insufficient for conviction

Meisheid’s attorneys have argued that the evidence to convict Meisheid was insufficient, arguing that while he displayed a weapon in front of two county deputies, he did not do so in a threatening manner.

Specifically, the appellant conceded he had brandished a gun, but did not point it toward officers. Instead, he argued the weapon was displayed “in front of, near and next to” the officers at his door.

“The record is undisputed that Meisheid did not display his weapon in the direction of either deputy,” wrote an appellant brief to the state’s highest court. “Indeed, Deputy Burke conceded during cross-examination that Meisheid never pointed the holster toward him … [body camera footage] shows Meisheid turn to the side, look away, grab the holster from his waistband, and point it to the sky.”

The brief also argued that Meisheid’s statement while pointing the gun in the air was not “threatening,” adding that he never pointed it toward officers, and returned the holster to his waistband after less than three seconds.

Appellant lawyers said Meisheid’s remarks that repeated the word “boom” were “ … referencing the caller’s complaint of fireworks rather than the intent to use physical force against the deputies.”

“The State’s interpretation frustrates the statute’s evident purpose, which is to distinguish between the mere display of a dangerous weapon and the display of a dangerous weapon in a threatening manner toward another,” wrote the appellant in one court record. “The State’s reading threatens to criminalize the mere display of a dangerous weapon, which another person finds intimidating.”

Meisheid has also argued that a district court abused its discretion by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence for assaulting a peace officer by displaying a dangerous weapon, since state law allows judges to impose less harsh sentences for first-time offenders, “if mitigating circumstances exist.”

His lawyers argued that such circumstances did exist. Specifically, they highlighted Meisheid’s lack of criminal history, and his previous public service as a city council member and mayor of Walker, Iowa, and volunteer work with a fire department. Attorneys also argued the man’s health presented a mitigating factor, noting chronic pain from a workplace accident that broke many of Meisheid’s ribs, as well as anxiety, depression and high blood pressure.

“It is one thing to say that Meisheid’s circumstances do not warrant a sentencing reduction in the court’s discretion,” the appeal brief said. “It is another to say that no mitigating factors exist. The district court’s conclusion is a clear abuse of discretion.”

State says sentence was appropriate

Prosecutors have pushed back on Meisheid’s assertion that pointing a weapon in the air was anything other than a threat.

The state argues the appellant’s defense only covered half of state code’s definition of assault by displaying a weapon. While Iowa law forbids pointing a dangerous weapon toward someone as an act of intimidation, it also forbids any action that would “display in a threatening manner any dangerous weapon.”

The appellee cited testimonies from officers, who said they felt threatened when the appellant pointed the item in the air.

“[Meisheid] displayed it toward the deputies because he removed it from his waistband and brandished it at the deputies making it clear he was armed. And it had Defendant’s desired effect,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Genevieve Reinkoester in a briefing to the state supreme court. “If Defendant’s actions on July 9, 2022, do not amount to displaying a firearm toward someone, the State does not see what could.”

Reinkoester’s court filing also pushed back on Meisheid’s claim that he was entitled to a lesser sentence under the circumstances.

She said a district court’s statement before issuing the sentence made clear that it had considered the defendant’s record, civil service and health issues, and reached the conclusion to apply the minimum sentence anyway.

“The Court does not see you taking accountability for this,” the district judge said at Meisheid’s sentencing hearing, according to court transcripts. “The Court does not see any remorse for this. The Court does not see you recognizing the seriousness of this crime … there could have been a tragedy. Pulling a firearm on law enforcement is a serious offense. That is why it carries the penalties it carries.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com