Opinion
No. 3-200 / 01-2045.
Filed May 29, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Edwin P. Weis, Judicial Magistrate, and James Heckerman, Judge.
On discretionary review, defendant appeals from her simple misdemeanor conviction, following bench trial before a judicial magistrate, for interference with official acts. REVERSED.
Connie Volksen, Omaha, Nebraska, appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Crowl, County Attorney, and Lori Falk-Goss, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Following a bench trial before a judicial magistrate, Connie Volksen was convicted of interference with official acts, a simple misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 719.1(1) (2001). She appeals contending the evidence against her is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she interfered with official acts. She also challenges her conviction on a variety of other grounds. We reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On April 25, 2001, three law enforcement officers went to a Pottawattamie County residence to serve an arrest warrant on a person other than the defendant. Volksen was not the owner of the home. The officers knocked on the doors of the residence. Eventually, Volksen came to the back door. The officers asked her to open the door several times and she refused. Volksen informed the officers she did not live at the residence. When one of the officers subsequently observed the subject named in the warrant in the house, the officers kicked the door open. Both Volksen and the subject named in the warrant were arrested.
On April 26, 2001, the State filed a criminal complaint charging Volksen with interfering with official acts, a simple misdemeanor. Trial was held on July 23, 2001. The presiding magistrate found Volksen guilty. Volksen moved for a new trial which the magistrate denied. She then appealed to the district court. The proceedings before the magistrate were not recorded or transcribed. After reviewing the magistrate's written notes regarding the testimony of the witnesses, the district court summarily affirmed the defendant's conviction. Volksen filed an application for discretionary review, which our supreme court granted.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Volksen maintains the evidence against her is insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she knowingly interfered with official acts. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State but consider all of the evidence, not just that which supports the verdict. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Iowa 2000).
To convict Volksen of interference with official acts under its theory of the case, the State was required to prove that she knowingly resisted or obstructed the officers in the performance of any act which was within the lawful duty or authority of the officers. Iowa Code § 719.1(1).
In her motion for new trial, Volksen contended the magistrate's decision finding her guilty was in error because Volksen did not "obstruct or resist" the officers as required by section 719.1(1). In his order denying the defendant's motion for new trial, the magistrate explained that defendant was "charged with interference not obstructing or resisting."
On appeal, Volksen acknowledges the officers were acting within their lawful duty or authority under the controlling statute because they were serving an arrest warrant on a named individual. She contends the magistrate's conclusion that she violated section 719.1(1) without knowingly obstructing or resisting the officers is contrary to law. We conclude this argument has merit. The State charged Volksen by complaint with interference with official acts, and specifically alleged that she "did resist or obstruct a peace officer from his lawful duties" contrary to section 719.1. The record before us on appeal indicates the magistrate found Volksen guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, of interference with official acts without concluding that she knowingly resisted or obstructed the officers. Based on the language of the section 719.1(1), we conclude Volksen should not have been convicted of the offense with which she was charged in the absence of a finding that she knowingly resisted or obstructed the officers who were executing the warrant. Accordingly, we reverse Volksen's conviction.
Our supreme court discussed the language of the controlling statute, its legislative history, and the authorities which have interpreted the statute in State v Smithson, 594 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1999).
The defendant raises a number of other assignments of error based on claims of unfair treatment and improper procedures. Because we have concluded Volksen's conviction must be reversed, we find it unnecessary to pass or her remaining claims. However, we do wish to comment on one of Volksen's additional assignments of error. Volksen complains she suffered prejudice when the magistrate "took over the questioning on several occasions" at her bench trial. Because the proceedings before the magistrate were not transcribed or recorded, the limited record before us on appeal does not permit us to accurately assess this complaint. However, the magistrate's notes do confirm the court personally questioned Volksen regarding an issue which the court apparently believed was pertinent to evaluating the defendant's credibility. It is ordinarily a dangerous practice for a trial judge to actively question witnesses in a criminal case. State v. Droste, 232 N.W.2d 483, 490 (Iowa 1975). The trial court should act impartially and avoid conduct which suggests the court has assumed the partisan role of advocate for the prosecution. State v. Thornburgh, 220 N.W.2d 579, 585 (Iowa 1974).