Ashley Ruhland has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and maintains that she shot Justin Emmick in self-defense.

LE MARS, Iowa — A Sioux City woman accused of fatally shooting a man while the two were target shooting on a remote Plymouth County acreage is scheduled to stand trial Nov. 3 after pleading not guilty to first-degree murder. Ashley M. Ruhland, 35, is charged in the July 29 death of 49-year-old Justin F. Emmick, whose body was found in a secluded area of his rural property north of Sioux City. Authorities say Ruhland acknowledged shooting Emmick but told investigators that she acted in self-defense, a claim law enforcement challenged in court documents.

The scheduled trial moves the case beyond the initial arrest and charging stage and puts the competing accounts of the shooting on course for examination in court. Ruhland entered a written plea of not guilty in August and demanded a speedy trial, according to court records cited by local news organizations. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for Oct. 20 in Plymouth County District Court, with the trial set to begin two weeks later. Ruhland remains accused, not convicted, and prosecutors would have to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Her self-defense claim is expected to be a central issue because investigators have said the physical circumstances they documented did not support her assertion that Emmick posed an immediate danger when she fired.

The case began shortly after 3 p.m. July 29, when the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office received a 911 call reporting a shooting at an acreage in the 31000 block of K-18S. Deputies and Akron emergency medical personnel were sent to the property. The sheriff’s office said the first deputy was directed by the caller to a remote portion of the acreage, where Emmick was found wounded. Responders attempted lifesaving measures, but the Plymouth County medical examiner pronounced him dead at the scene. Investigators later identified Ruhland as the person who had placed the emergency call. Authorities said she had been temporarily staying at the same address as Emmick before the shooting.

According to the criminal complaint described by Law&Crime and Siouxland-area television stations, Ruhland and Emmick had gone to a remote corner of the property to shoot at targets. Authorities said Ruhland fired two shots at Emmick, striking him once in the back and once in the head. The complaint said the wounds showed that Emmick had been shot from behind and noted that Ruhland was not injured. Investigators wrote that they found no evidence showing she was in danger from Emmick at the time. Those statements are allegations contained in the prosecution’s case and have not been tested at trial. Publicly available reports do not describe all physical evidence collected at the scene or disclose the full defense account.

Ruhland’s own statements after the shooting are another significant part of the case. According to the complaint, she made comments to law enforcement along the lines of “it’s got to be now, or it’s going to be me” and “it was either him or me.” Investigators also reported that she said she “didn’t want him to suffer.” The charging documents do not, in the reports reviewed, provide a full transcript of her 911 call or subsequent interviews, making it unclear what additional context surrounded those statements. The quotations therefore represent only the portions that authorities chose to include in the complaint and are likely to receive closer scrutiny if prosecutors seek to use them as evidence at trial.

The circumstances before the shooting add another layer to the self-defense dispute. Authorities said Ruhland previously told relatives that she wanted a gun for protection and that Emmick was going to teach her how to shoot. Investigators also said she was the protected party in a protection order involving Emmick. At the same time, she had been staying with him at the acreage for several days, according to court documents cited by local outlets. The available public records do not explain in detail why the protection order was issued, what restrictions it contained, why Ruhland was staying at Emmick’s property or how the two came to be target shooting together. Those gaps are important because the existence of the order alone does not establish what happened during the final encounter.

Iowa law allows a person to use reasonable force when that person reasonably believes the force is necessary to defend against an imminent use of unlawful force. State law also recognizes that deadly force may be justified under specified circumstances, and a person lawfully present generally has no duty to retreat merely because another option may exist. Whether those protections apply depends on the facts surrounding the use of force. Investigators’ assertion that Emmick was shot from behind and that Ruhland was uninjured is part of why authorities rejected her initial self-defense explanation, but those facts do not by themselves resolve every legal question. A jury, if the case reaches trial, would evaluate the evidence presented under the judge’s instructions on Iowa law.

The first-degree murder charge carries especially high stakes. Under Iowa Code Chapter 707, first-degree murder includes a killing committed willfully, deliberately and with premeditation and is classified as a Class A felony. Local reports have noted that a conviction on the charge carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole under Iowa law. The filing of that charge reflects the state’s allegation, not a finding that Ruhland acted with the required criminal intent. Her not-guilty plea places the burden on prosecutors to establish each element of the offense while allowing the defense to challenge the state’s evidence and present evidence supporting justification or another theory permitted by the court.

Ruhland first appeared in Plymouth County court Aug. 10, when a judge formally advised her of the charge and scheduled an arraignment. She later entered her not-guilty plea through a written arraignment filed Aug. 21. Local court reporting said Judge Jeffrey Neary was assigned to the case. By Sept. 1, court scheduling information showed a Nov. 3 trial date and the Oct. 20 pretrial hearing. The speedy-trial demand gives the calendar added significance, although court dates in criminal cases can change because of motions, evidentiary disputes or other rulings. No publicly reviewed source indicates that Ruhland has withdrawn her plea or that the first-degree murder charge has been amended.

The investigation has involved several agencies. The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Office said the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation charged Ruhland after she was taken to the sheriff’s office following the shooting. The sheriff’s office and the state investigative agency were conducting the investigation jointly, with assistance from the Iowa State Patrol, Le Mars Police Department, Hinton Police Department and Akron EMS. The sheriff’s office initially said no additional details would be released because the investigation was ongoing. As a result, public reporting has largely relied on the sheriff’s announcement, the criminal complaint and subsequent court filings rather than a full evidentiary record.

That limited record leaves several questions unresolved ahead of trial. Reports reviewed do not identify the firearm involved, explain who owned it, provide the complete sequence leading up to the shots or describe whether investigators recovered targets, shell casings, recordings or other physical evidence from the remote shooting area. They also do not provide a complete account of what Ruhland says Emmick did that caused her to fear for her safety. Those matters may become important if they appear in discovery, pretrial motions or testimony. The state’s allegation that she shot him while his back was turned is likely to be weighed against any evidence the defense offers about events before and during the confrontation.

For now, the case remains pending in Plymouth County District Court. Ruhland has pleaded not guilty and remains in custody, according to the latest local reporting reviewed. The next publicly reported milestone is the Oct. 20 pretrial hearing, followed by the scheduled Nov. 3 trial. Until a plea, dismissal or verdict resolves the case, the allegations in the criminal complaint remain accusations, and the self-defense claim has not been adjudicated.

Author note: Last updated Sept. 8, 2026.