sufficiency of the evidence standard in Iowa

2022In considering a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge, “[i]t is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the [factfinder].” State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).

2022In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “[i]t is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).

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.

2022In considering a sufficiency-of-the- evidence challenge, “[i]t is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the [factfinder].” State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).

2022In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, “[i]t is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).

2024See State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998) (stating that the court in ruling on a motion for new trial must determine whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence rather than applying a sufficiency-of-the- evidence standard).

2022Ellis, 578 N.W.2d at 658–59. (citation omitted) This standard is broader than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard in that it permits the court to consider the credibility of witnesses.

2025Instead, it seeks to put the parties and the court on the same page so the claim of error will be fully understood and addressed on appeal.” Id. 1 Moore does not challenge his convictions for possession of marijuana and interference with official acts. 5 Moore states the issue presented for appellate review is whether “the trial court erred in not granting a new trial because the weight of the evidence does not establish that a fentanyl pill found in the Dubuque County Jail belonged to the defendant.” (Emphasis added.) As this issue statement indicates and as Moore’s stated standard of review

2024See, e.g., State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa 2016) (“[The weight-of-the-evidence standard] is also more stringent than the sufficiency-of-the- evidence standard in that it allows the court to grant a motion for new trial only if more evidence supports the alternative verdict as opposed to the verdict rendered.”).

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”).

2018"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 . "[A]ppellate 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).

2024State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 134 (Iowa 2004).

2017Additionally, “[a]ppellate review of a district court ruling on a motion for new trial asserting the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence ordinarily does not extend to ‘the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.’” Ary, 877 N.W.2d at 707 (quoting State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 134 (Iowa 2004)).

2021“This is a more stringent standard than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.” Nguyen v. State, 707 N.W.2d 317, 327 (Iowa 2005). “[The court] may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses.

2017“This is a more stringent standard than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard.” Nguyen v. State, 707 N.W.2d 317, 327 (Iowa 2005). “[The court] may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses.

2022See State v. Brown, 569 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Iowa 1997) (citing State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Iowa 1980)) (“In a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge we review all the evidence to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”); see also State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686, 692 (Iowa 1996) (explaining the importance of circumstantial evidence and inferences to prove intent). 28 The State offered a variety of evidence showing intent to deliver.

2014See State v. Randle, 555 N.W.2d 666, 671-72 (Iowa 1996); State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 340-41 (Iowa 1980).

2025When a defendant moves for a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the “test is more searching than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence test, involves questions of credibility, and requires the district court to determine whether more credible evidence supports one side or the other.” State v. Shorter, 893 N.W.2d 65, 70 (Iowa 2017).

2024When a defendant moves for new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the “test is more searching than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence test, involves questions of credibility, and requires the district court to determine whether more 8 credible evidence supports one side or the other.” State v. Shorter, 893 N.W.2d 65, 70 (Iowa 2017).

2021In this context, “if the record in this case fails to reveal substantial evidence to support the convictions, counsel was ineffective for failing to properly raise the issue and prejudice resulted.” Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d at 616 . 4 The court of appeals recently addressed an identical sufficiency-of-the evidence challenge based on an identical record.

2016See State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2004) (noting defendant “failed to specifically raise the sufficiency of the evidence claim now raised on appeal”).

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”).

2006See State v. Scalise, 660 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2003) (finding a court used the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard based upon its use of certain language in its ruling, and noting an absence of an independent evaluation of the evidence and determinations of witness credibility).

2020State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa 2017) (citing State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012)).

2017In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we view all the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.” State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted).

2019See State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854, 856 (Iowa 2005).

2017See State v. Petithory, 702 N.W.2d 854, 856 (Iowa 2005) (“Unlike a jury trial, in a bench trial the defendant is not required to move for a judgment of acquittal to preserve error on a sufficiency of the evidence claim.”); cf. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d at 43 (“[O]ffenders in a habitual offender proceeding must preserve error in any deficiencies in the proceeding by filing a motion in arrest of judgment,” but applying the rule prospectively only).

2019The police officers pulled out two 9“When a sufficiency of the evidence claim is made on appeal from a criminal bench trial, error preservation is no barrier.” Howse, 875 N.W.2d at 688 (edited for readability). 9 gem bags, which commonly hold contraband.

2019State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016).

2018See State v. Green, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999).

2006State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999).

2016“When . . . a [sufficiency-of-the-evidence] claim is made on appeal from a criminal bench trial, error preservation is no barrier.” State v. Anspach, 627 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Iowa 2001); see also State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997).

2016See State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997).

2023This assessment “is broader than the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard in that it permits the court to consider the credibility of witnesses.” Id.

2023But “it is also more stringent than the sufficiency- of-the-evidence standard in that it allows the court to grant a motion for a new trial only if more evidence supports the alternative verdict as opposed to the verdict rendered.” Id.

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)).

2022State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

2020See State v. O’Shea, 634 N.W.2d 150 , 154–55 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (concluding the district applied the weight-of-the-evidence standard and not the sufficiency-of-the evidence standard when court did not view evidence in the light most favorable to the State); cf. State v. Barrett, No. 17-1814, 2018 WL 6132275 , at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018) (declining to remand issue to district court and noting “the record does not affirmatively demonstrate error”).

2016See State v. O’Shea, 634 N.W.2d 150, 155 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (“While ‘substantial evidence’ is one element of the sufficiency of the evidence standard, other indices of that standard—such as viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution—are wholly lacking from the court’s decision.

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).

2016“The granting of a new trial based on the conclusion that a 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).

2024The only issue Cain pursued at the hearing on his application was that trial counsel was ineffective “in failing to bring a sufficiency of the evidence claim for the firearms enhancement” under Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(e), which provides: “A person in the immediate possession or control of a firearm while participating in a violation of this subsection shall be sentenced to two times the term otherwise imposed by law, and no such judgment, sentence, or part thereof shall be deferred or suspended.” In a deposition admitted as an exhibit at the postconviction-relief hearing, trial counsel ac

2006“In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted.” Wills, 696 N.W.2d at 22 ; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.

2024In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006).

2023In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 286 (Iowa 2006).

2022State v. Spies, 672 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa 2003).

2004State v. Spies, 672 N.W.2d 792, 796 (Iowa 2003).

2020State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa 2017) (citing State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012)).

2020State v. Huser, 894 N.W.2d 472, 490 (Iowa 2017) (citing State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012)).

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).

2015See State v. Root, 801 N.W.2d 29, 31 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

2018On the other hand, if the record reveals substantial evidence, counsel’s failure to raise the claim of error could not be prejudicial.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659 , 664–65 (Iowa 2013) (“In any event, the question of preservation hardly matters because [the defendant] may raise the issue through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . [I]n order to determine the ineffectiveness issue on this appeal, we are only required to determine whether the motion would have been meritorious even if the sufficiency of the evidence challenge had not been prese

2018On the other hand, if the record reveals substantial evidence, counsel’s failure to raise the claim of error could not be prejudicial.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659 , 664–65 (Iowa 2013) (“In any event, the question of preservation hardly matters because [the defendant] may raise the issue through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . [I]n order to determine the ineffectiveness issue on this appeal, we are only required to determine whether the motion would have been meritorious even if the sufficiency of the evidence challenge had not been prese

2018See State v. Crone, 545 N.W.2d 267, 270 (Iowa 1996) (analyzing a defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under an ineffective- assistance-of-counsel rubric when a general motion for judgment of acquittal was inadequate to preserve error on the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim).

2016See State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 174 (Iowa 2011) (“The motion for directed verdict of acquittal . . . lacked any specific grounds, and thus, the error was not preserved.”); State v. Crone, 545 N.W.2d 267, 270 (Iowa 1996) (“The record reveals Crone’s attorney did not mention the ‘threat’ or ‘anything of value’ elements of the extortion charge in his motion.

2024Rather, he is arguing “the State did not present 3 The court in Ernst also noted that although inference stacking is not absolutely prohibited, the reliance on stacked inferences is pertinent to the analysis of a sufficiency of the evidence claim because a chain of inferences can become so attenuated that reliance on it to sustain a conviction would be unreasonable and would amount to speculation. 954 N.W.2d at 59 (quoting People v. Donald, 461 P.3d 4, 9 (Colo. 2020) (en banc)). 8 any evidence regarding the presence or absence of a stamp, label, or other official indicia evidencing the tax was

2021Id. (collecting cases).

2021See State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732 , 733–34 (Iowa 1973) (outlining the required standard of proof to sustain a jury verdict on a sufficiency of the evidence claim).

2021But under today’s law that is sufficient to convict.”); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732 , 733–34 (Iowa 1973) (outlining the required standard of proof to sustain a jury verdict on a sufficiency of the evidence claim).