Opinion
No. 1-251 / 00-0438.
Filed May 23, 2001.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lyon County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.
Jack Hartle appeals from his conviction and sentence for domestic abuse assault in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.2A(2)(c) and 236.2(1)(1999). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Denise A. Timmins, Assistant Attorney General, and Paul L. White, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Jack Wayne Hartle appeals from his conviction and sentence for domestic abuse assault. We affirm.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
Substantial evidence in the record supports the following version of the facts. On August 1, 1999, Hartle and his girlfriend, Jennifer Holthe, were arguing in the residence they shared with their six-month-old daughter. In the early morning hours of August 2, the argument escalated when Hartle took a loaded gun off their nightstand and pointed it at Holthe's head. He then dropped the gun on the bed and left the residence. Holthe fled to the bathroom and called the police. When the police arrived at the residence, Hartle was standing in the "search position" outside of the house. The police arrested Hartle shortly after their arrival at the residence. The State charged Hartle with domestic abuse assault while displaying a dangerous weapon in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2A(2)(c)(1999). After a trial to the bench, the district court entered an order finding Hartle guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed two years, suspended the sentence, and placed him on probation for two years. On appeal, Hartle contends the trial court (1) erred in not granting his motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial as there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and (2) abused its discretion in overruling his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
II. Standard of Review.
We review claims of insufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa 1997). We will uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. State v. Schmidt, 588 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Iowa 1998). "Substantial evidence" is that upon which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We must determine whether the verdict is supported by the weight of the credible evidence. State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998).
We apply an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing the district court's ruling on motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. State v. Jefferson, 545 N.W.2d 248, 249 (Iowa 1996). In general, motions for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence should be looked upon with disfavor and granted sparingly. Whitsel v. State, 525 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1994).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Pace, 602 N.W.2d 764, 768 (Iowa 1999). We give consideration to all of the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the verdict, including reasonable inferences that could be derived from all the evidence. Id. We review a trial court's findings in a bench trial case as we would a jury verdict. State v. Weaver, 608 N.W.2d 797, 803 (Iowa 2000). A trial court's findings of guilt are binding if supported by substantial evidence. Thomas, 561 N.W.2d at 39. If a rational trier of fact could conceivably find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence is substantial. State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Iowa 2000).
Hartle argues there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of domestic abuse assault, primarily relying on Holthe's alleged lack of credibility. Hartle points to several inconsistencies in Holthe's testimony when compared to statements or actions attributed to her before the incident in question. The primary contention at trial was whether Hartle pointed a gun at or displayed it in a threatening manner toward Holthe — Holthe testified he did point a gun to her head, Hartle denies he did so. In its findings and conclusions of law, the district court explicitly found Holthe's testimony to be more credible than Hartle's. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses are for the fact finder to determine. State v. Bugely, 408 N.W.2d 394, 395 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). Holthe's testimony is substantially supported by the surrounding circumstances of the night in question, including the recorded telephone call to police immediately after the incident occurred. We have reviewed the record and determine the weight of the credible evidence supports the verdict. We conclude the district court did not err by denying Hartle's motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial because substantial evidence exists in the record to support Hartle's conviction for domestic abuse assault.
IV. Newly Discovered Evidence.
Hartle next contends the district court abused its discretion by failing to grant him a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The evidence he sought to produce consisted of an affidavit from a former partner of Holthe, Greg Hagedorn. Hagedorn stated he believed Holthe had a propensity to fabricate stories of abuse by boyfriends, including one incident when he alleges she made such statements about him in public. To succeed in a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, Hartle must show, by a preponderance, the evidence in question: (1) was discovered after the verdict, (2) could not have been discovered earlier in the exercise of due diligence, (3) is material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) probably would have changed the result of the trial. See State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 550 (Iowa 1996). "Newly discovered evidence" is evidence of a new material fact, or new evidence in relation to a fact in issue, discovered by a party to a cause after the rendition of a verdict or judgment therein. State v. Adamson, 542 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hartle's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Hagedorn's affidavit was merely cumulative or impeaching. It included information serving only to impeach Holthe's credibility and does not constitute new evidence relating to a fact in issue. Defense counsel thoroughly cross-examined Holthe at trial and produced evidence of other alleged false accusations made by Holthe intended to place her credibility in question. Hagedorn's affidavit was therefore cumulative of other impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court on this issue and affirm Hartle's conviction and sentence.