Opinion
No. 120 / 00-1685.
Filed August 27, 2001.
On appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, JOEL D. NOVAK, Judge.
Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for forgery. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and James Ward, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by CARTER, P.J., and CADY, J., and MCGIVERIN, S.J.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
On May 20, 2000, the defendant, Wayne Cosper, attempted to cash a check at Easy Money Check Cashing in Des Moines. The check was drawn on the closed Brenton Bank account of Norm Secor and was made payable to the defendant. The check was dated May 19, 2000, and the memo portion of the check indicated it was payment for "home remodeling labor." The check was one of several stolen in an earlier burglary of Secor's locked storage area.
The defendant was charged with forgery in violation of Iowa Code sections 715A.2(1)(c) and 715A.2(2)(a)(3) (1999), and a jury found him guilty as charged. On appeal from the resulting district court judgment and sentence, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and argues there was no evidence to show that he knew the check was forged. He contends he received the check in payment for a drug debt and he had no intent to defraud anyone by attempting to cash it.
We review a jury verdict for substantial evidence. State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2001). In deciding whether the evidence is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and make all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the evidence. Id. As such, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is for correction of errors at law. Id.
We find there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. The defendant was in possession of a stolen check that had been made out to him, and the memo portion of the check falsely indicated it was payment for home remodeling labor which the defendant had not performed. There was testimony the defendant was hesitant and appeared uncomfortable when the teller at the check cashing service asked him to hand over some identification.
The defendant initially told the arresting officer and later a detective that he had received the check as payment for labor performed at a home on the southeast side. However, when confronted with the prospect of having to take the detective to the house where he had allegedly performed the work, the defendant changed his story and claimed the check was payment for a drug debt he had been owed since the fall of 1999. The latter story was not subject to confirmation as the defendant claimed he only knew the person who gave him the check by the nickname of "Shooter," and he did not know any other information which would assist in identifying him. A false story told by a defendant to explain or deny a material fact against him is by itself an indication of guilt and is relevant to show that the defendant fabricated evidence to aid his defense . State v. Cox, 500 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 1993).
Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 14(f)(16). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could determine the defendant knew the check was forged when he attempted to cash it. Where the record contains substantial evidence, we are bound by the jury's finding of guilt. Button, 622 N.W.2d at 483. The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
This is not a published opinion.