Opinion
No. 04-1878.
June 15, 2005.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, James M. Drew, Judge.
Nathan Dominic Curtis appeals the judgment and sentence entered by the district court following his conviction for first-degree robbery. CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David A. Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Paul L. Martin, County Attorney, and Carlyle D. Dalen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Nathan Dominic Curtis appeals the judgment and sentence entered by the district court following his conviction for first-degree robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.2 (2003). We conditionally affirm and remand with directions.
I. Background Facts Proceedings.
On May 5, 2004, Julee Olson was walking to a gym in Mason City, Iowa, when a man approached her. The man put a knife to Julee's neck and told her to give him her money. When she informed the man she did not have any money, he ordered her to give him the bag she was carrying. She complied, and the man subsequently drove away in a pickup truck. Julee reported the robbery when she arrived at the gym. The owner of the gym called the police, and an investigation ensued. On June 3, 2004, the police received a phone call from Stephanie Swieter, Curtis's girlfriend. She informed the police Curtis told her he robbed a woman on May 5, 2004. In response, the police conducted a photographic lineup. Julee identified Curtis as her attacker.
On July 16, 2004, the State charged Curtis by trial information with robbery in the first degree. A trial commenced on October 5, 2004. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Curtis filed a motion for new trial on October 25, 2004. The district court denied the motion and ordered Curtis to serve a term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years. Curtis appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
The standard of review for an award or a denial of a motion for new trial is for abuse of discretion. State v. Weaver, 554 N.W.2d 240, 244 (Iowa 1996); State v. LaDouceur, 366 N.W.2d 174, 178 (Iowa 1985). The district court has broad, but not unlimited, discretion. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(c). When considering a motion for new trial, the district court must apply the "weight of the evidence" standard. State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998). A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence where a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or cause than the other. Id. at 658.
III. Error Preservation.
On appeal, the State asserts Curtis failed to preserve error because his motion for new trial did not adequately argue the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rather, the State contends Curtis's motion solely challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and that a motion for new trial was never argued to the trial court. We disagree. First, we note the motion itself is clearly entitled "MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL." Additionally, paragraph three of the motion states, "The verdict is contrary to the evidence for the reasons set forth in Paragraph 2 above." Similarly, paragraph five of the motion for new trial indicates, "The verdict was contrary to the evidence." Although Curtis's motion did incorporate an argument with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, it is clear that in addition, he argued a new trial was warranted because the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Consequently, we reject the State's argument with respect to preservation of error and proceed to address the merits of Curtis's claims.
Paragraph two points out specific discrepancies and credibility issues within the State's case.
IV. Motion for New Trial.
Curtis's sole argument on appeal is the district court applied the wrong legal standard in denying his motion for a new trial. Specifically, Curtis avers the district court failed to independently determine whether the verdict was contrary to the evidence, as distinguished from finding that the evidence was legally sufficient. For reasons that follow, we agree.
In ruling on Curtis's motion for new trial, the district court stated: THE COURT: All right. These issues I've passed on during the trial on different motions and the mistrial issue was addressed at the time of trial also. For the same reasons previously relied on by the court, the Motion for New Trial is denied.
The only motions passed on during trial concerning the nature of the evidence were Curtis's two motions for judgment of acquittal. When ruling on these motions, the district court properly utilized a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. Although this was the proper standard to apply to Curtis's motions for judgment of acquittal, it is not the proper standard to apply to a motion for new trial. See id. Consequently, the district court's reliance on these previous rulings to support its decision to deny Curtis's motion for new trial is problematic because the incorrect standard of review was inherently incorporated and applied. The record is devoid of any evidence suggesting the district court made an independent evaluation of the evidence or assessed the credibility of the witnesses presented at trial. As a result, it appears the district court utilized an incorrect standard of review and thereby abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial. Consequently, we conditionally affirm the judgment and sentence. We vacate the trial court's ruling on Curtis's motion for new trial and remand solely for the purpose of allowing the district court to rule on defendant's motion applying the correct weight-of-the-evidence standard. If on remand the district court determines Curtis's motion for new trial should be overruled, the judgment and sentence shall stand affirmed. If, on the other hand, the district court grants the motion, Curtis's judgment and sentence shall be vacated, and a new trial shall be granted.
CONDITIONALLY AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.