Opinion
No. 2-014 / 01-0496.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, MARY E. HOWES, District Associate Judge.
Kent Lage appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of eluding a law enforcement vehicle. AFFIRMED.
Harold DeLange, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Robert C. Bradfield, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Kent Lage appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of eluding a law enforcement vehicle in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279 (Supp. 1999). This charge was based on allegations Lage led police officer Dennis Colclasure on a high-speed chase after the officer attempted to stop him for reckless driving. On appeal Lage argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to establish he was the driver of his vehicle on the evening of the chase.
Our standard of review on this issue is for errors at law. State v. Phams, 342 N.W.2d 792, 795 (Iowa 1983). A jury's guilty verdict is binding upon us unless we conclude the record lacks substantial evidence to support such a finding. State v. Bush, 518 N.W.2d 778, 779 (Iowa 1994). Substantial evidence means such evidence as could convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Taft, 506 N.W.2d 757, 762 (Iowa 1993). Evidence which merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is insufficient. State v. Kirchner, 600 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the record in a light most favorable to the State. State v. Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d 76, 80 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998).
The State's case included Officer Colclasure's testimony that he noticed Lage's vehicle when it squealed its tires while it was rounding a corner. He also testified he was able to see the car's driver because he was standing twenty-five to thirty feet from the corner, at the edge of a well-lit parking lot.
Lage challenges this testimony as "dubious." He questions Colclasure's ability to identify the driver given Colclasure's vantage point, the vehicle's speed, and the car's tinted windows. Lage argues that the weakness of this evidence, taken together with defense testimony that many others had access to his car, renders the State's case insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction. We disagree.
It is the role of the jury, not the appellate courts, to determine credibility of witnesses and resolve any conflicts in evidence. See Shortridge, 589 N.W.2d at 80; State v. Fetters, 562 N.W.2d 770, 772 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). The jury had before it all of the cited circumstances incident to Colclasure's testimony. We find it could have reasonably accepted Colclasure's testimony identifying Lage as the driver of the car. State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) ("we will not invade the province of the jury unless the testimony is so impossible, absurd, and self-contradictory that it must be deemed a nullity"). The district court decision is accordingly affirmed.
AFFIRMED.