weight of the evidence standard in Iowa

2024Id. 10 “On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 203 .

2024See State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003) (explaining the difference between 15 these arguments); State v. Rivers, No. 18-0365, 2019 WL 2150807 , at *1 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2019) (reiterating that a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge and a weight-of-the-evidence challenge are “free-standing substantive argument[s]” that require more than “boilerplate citations to legal authorities”).

2026See State v. Demaris, No. 03-0979, 2004 WL 1159782 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 26, 2004) (finding the defendant’s weight-of-the-evidence challenge was not preserved following a bench trial because he failed to file a motion for new trial (citing State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998))).

2025Substantial evidence exists if the record “would convince a rational fact 1 The court’s written order stated that it denied Randel’s motion for new trial “[f]or the reasons stated on the record.” On appeal, Randel does not assert that the district court applied the wrong standard or request remand for the court to reconsider the motion “applying the correct weight-of-the-evidence standard.” Cf. State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998). 5 finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510 , 516 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted).

2025The weight-of-the-evidence standard “permits the court to consider the credibility of witnesses.” Id.

2025First, “a motion for new trial brought under the weight-of-the-evidence standard essentially concedes the evidence adequately supports the jury verdict.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa 2016).

2023The weight-of-the-evidence analysis is broader than a sufficiency-of- the-evidence analysis as “‘it involves questions of credibility and refers to a determination that more credible evidence supports one side than the other.’” State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006)).

2021“Unlike the sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, the weight-of-the-evidence analysis is much broader in that it involves questions of credibility and refers to a determination that more credible evidence supports one side than the other.” Id.

2025See State v. Root, 801 N.W.2d 29, 30 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (“In ruling on a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, the district court is to apply a weight-of-the-evidence standard.”).

2020See State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547 , 560–61 (Iowa 2006) (concluding the district court applied the incorrect legal standard because the court did not specifically articulate what standard it applied and referenced motions that called for the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard); State v. Root, 801 N.W.2d 29, 31 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (remanding case for application of the weight-of-the-evidence standard because the district court 19 did not articulate what standard it applied and the record was ambiguous as to the standard applied).

2018See id. at 134 .

2018Id. at 134 .

2025Trial courts have “considerable discretion when determining a motion for new trial under the weight-of-the-evidence test.” Id.

2025State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006). “[T]he district court has considerable discretion when determining a motion for new trial under the weight-of-the-evidence test.” Id.

2026See, e.g., State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa 2016); State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008); State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006); State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006); State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998).

2023The weight-of-the-evidence analysis is broader than a sufficiency-of- the-evidence analysis as “‘it involves questions of credibility and refers to a determination that more credible evidence supports one side than the other.’” State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006)).

2026As a result, under this argument, Jackson failed to preserve error on the new trial motion since “issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

2025See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”).

2022“The district court errs by failing to ‘engage in any independent evaluation of the evidence or make any credibility determinations of the witnesses.’” Id. (quoting State v. Scalise, 660 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2003)).

2020Cf. State v. Scalise, 660 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2003) (concluding the district court “clearly used the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard rather than the weight-of- the-evidence standard” when the court said it was “commanded by law to view the evidence from the point of the view most favorable to the jury’s verdict”).

2023When a claim is made that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence, “the verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted” if “the court reaches the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted.” State v. Serrato, 11 787 N.W.2d 462, 472 (Iowa 2010) (quoting State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 , 658–59 (Iowa 1998)).

2014“On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa 2003); see also State v. Serrato, 787 N.W.2d 462, 472 (Iowa 2010).

2020Instead, “[o]n a weight-of- the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa 2003); see also United States v. Ashworth, 836 F.2d 260, 266 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The court of appeals . . . does not sit as a ‘thirteenth juror’ to judge the credibility of witnesses.

2013In Reeves , we stated: On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. [Commonwealth v.] Widmer, 560 Pa. 308 , 744 A.2d [745,] 753 [(Pa.2000)]; see also United States v. Ashworth, 836 F.2d 260, 266 (6th Cir.1988) (appellate court neither sits to judge credibility of witnesses nor to reweigh the evidence; rather appellate court is limited to examining the evidence produced at trial to determine whether the district court’s dete

2018See State v. Coleman, 890 N.W.2d 284 304 (Iowa 2017) (Waterman, J. dissenting) (“Judges cannot assume the role of a partisan advocate and do counsel’s work.”). 8 evidence.” His argument is premised on his belief that there was inadequate evidence to “support a finding that [he] was both the principal, who possessed a dangerous weapon, and also an aider and abettor.” The weight-of-the-evidence standard “involves questions of credibility, and requires the district court to determine whether more credible evidence supports one side or the other.” Shorter, 893 N.W.2d at 70 .

2017The supreme court recently addressed a motion for new trial based on a weight-of-the-evidence claim in State v. Shorter, 893 N.W.2d 65, 71 (Iowa 2017).

2017“The granting of a new trial based on the conclusion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence is reserved for those situations in which there is reason to believe that critical evidence has been ignored in the fact-finding process.” State v. Grant, 722 N.W.2d 645, 648-49 (Iowa 2006).

2017The grant of a new trial is “reserved for those situations in which there is reason to believe that critical evidence has been ignored in the fact-finding process.” State v. Grant, 722 N.W.2d 645 , 648–49 (Iowa 2006).

2024See State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 491 (Iowa 2013) (“On appeal, Thompson relies on Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6) and State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998).

2019See State v. Thompson , 836 N.W.2d 470 , 491 (Iowa 2013) (finding a weight-of-the-evidence claim that was not raised in a motion for a new trial was not preserved for review).

2022This is a deferential standard, and we will not reverse the district court’s ruling absent a “clear and manifest abuse of discretion.” State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 216 (Iowa 2013).

2017The trial court’s order stated, “Defendant’s motion 5 “On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 211 (Iowa 2013).

2017A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence where “a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an 5 issue or cause than the other.” State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Iowa 1998) (quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 38 (1982)). [T]he district court has considerable discretion when determining a motion for new trial under the weight-of-the-evidence test.

2017A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence where “a greater amount of credible evidence supports 4 one side of an issue or cause than the other.” State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Iowa 1998) (quoting Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 38 (1982)). [T]he district court has considerable discretion when determining a motion for new trial under the weight-of-the-evidence test.

2023He claims the district court applied a 10 sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard rather than a weight-of-the-evidence standard. “[W]e review a claim that the district court failed to apply the proper standard in ruling on a motion for new trial for errors at law.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa 2016) (citing State v. Wells, 738 N.W.2d 214, 218 (Iowa 2007)).

2011In ruling on a motion for a new trial in a criminal case, the district court is to apply a weight-of-the-evidence standard. 2 Id. at 219 ; State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003) (“On a motion for new trial, however, the power of the court is much broader.

2026See State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50 , 60 (Iowa 2021) (“While the weight-of-the-evidence standard allows the district court to make its own credibility determinations, a district court may grant a motion for new trial based on the weight of the evidence ‘only if more evidence supports the alternative verdict as opposed to the verdict rendered.’ The question for the court is . . . whether ‘a greater amount of credible evidence’ suggests the verdict rendered was a miscarriage of justice.” (citations omitted) (alteration in original)); accord Powers v. State, 911 N.W.2d 774, 782 (Iowa 2018) (“In ass

2025He argues that the evidence does not support the verdict. 7 supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all ‘legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’” Crawford, 972 N.W.2d at 202 (quoting State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017)).

2025“Evidence which merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is insufficient.” State v. Casady, 491 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 1992).

2022The trial court erred in applying the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard rather than the weight-of-the-evidence standard and stating that “credibility 1This is contrary to the standard employed when reviewing a sufficiency-of-the- evidence claim where “the credibility of witnesses is for the factfinder to decide except those rare circumstances where the testimony is absurd, impossible, or self-contradictory.” State v. Neitzel, 801 N.W.2d 612, 624 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011). 7 determinations are solely a matter for the factfinder.” Our review “does not extend to ‘the underlying question of whether

2021“On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight 9 of the evidence.” Reeves, 670 N.W.2d at 203 . “[W]e review the trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 551 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted).

2021A. Standard of Review “Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed for errors at law.” State v. Hansen, 750 N.W.2d 111, 112 (Iowa 2008).

2020To prevail on an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, a defendant “must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty and prejudice resulted.” State v. Ondayogi, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006).

2020We hold that the overwhelming evidence of Cardona’s guilt precludes us from finding Cardona’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to make such motions. “[C]laims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal are ordinarily reserved for postconviction proceedings to allow full development of the facts surrounding counsel's conduct.” State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997).

2020The harmless-error test reference in the Neiderbach footnote that Barrett cites was part of a quote from Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 , 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002 (1987), in which the Supreme Court found a due process violation based on confidential records alleged to contain exculpatory information that were withheld from the defendant.

2020The harmless-error test reference in the Neiderbach footnote that Barrett cites was part of a quote from Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 58 , 107 S. Ct. 989, 1002 (1987), in which the Supreme Court found a due process violation based on confidential records alleged to contain exculpatory information that were withheld from the defendant.

2018See State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 560 (Iowa 2006) (affirming convictions but remanding case to the district court to rule on motion for new trial under the correct weight-of- the-evidence standard); see also State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 829 (Iowa 2017) (conditionally affirming conviction and remanding for development of the record on his Sixth Amendment challenge).