Opinion
No. 12–1069.
2013-09-18
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Cory Daniel JURRENS, Defendant–Appellant.
The majority parses the proof at trial very finely—finding the State's theory of admissibility “fails” because the “legitimate factual issue” in dispute was Jurrens's possession of a knife. While his possession of a knife was one issue in dispute, it was not the only contested element of the crimes being prosecuted. The State was required to prove all the elements of the three offenses, including the defendant's specific intent, beyond a reasonable doubt. See Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d at 449 (Cady, J., dissenting) (noting “specific intent remains an element of the crime that the State is required to prove”). I believe the defendant's relatively recent threat to harm Mace's property was relevant to prove his motive and intent regarding all three offenses being prosecuted. I would affirm.