Opinion
No. 1-781 / 00-1873.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, DOUGLAS S. RUSSELL, Judge.
Timothy Miguel Brown appeals the district court's judgment and sentence following a jury trial for first-degree burglary. He claims the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he did not have permission or authority to enter the premises and (2) he participated in the crime. AFFIRMED.
David P. McManus of Glasson, Sole, McManus Combs, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Denver D. Dillard, County Attorney, and Jerry Vander Sanden, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Timothy Miguel Brown appeals the district court's judgment and sentence following a jury trial for first-degree burglary. He claims the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) he did not have permission or authority to enter the premises and (2) he participated in the crime. We affirm.
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 will 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.
Brown was convicted of first-degree burglary for being one of several men who entered Arnold Tiegen's apartment and beat the occupants with baseball bats. Brown argues the State failed to prove he did not have permission to enter the apartment. After hearing someone knocking on his door, Tiegen repeatedly asked the person knocking for identification. When no answer came, Tiegen opened the door and Brown and the other men pushed their way into the apartment and began swinging their baseball bats. The evidence presented at trial would allow a rational person to find that Brown did not have permission or authority to be in Tiegen's apartment.
Brown also argues there is insufficient evidence to prove he participated in the crime. He cites conflicting testimony by the eyewitnesses in the case. The credibility of a witness and the weight of their testimony is the province of the jury. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 59 (Iowa 1999). We find sufficient evidence supports defendant's conviction.
AFFIRMED.