State v. Jorgensen

94 Citing cases

  1. State v. Miller

    No. 22-0903 (Iowa Mar. 8, 2024)

    It is true that intent or purpose is seldom capable of direct proof and that we allow the fact finder to infer that a person acted with the purpose to arouse or gratify the person's sexual desires from the person's "conduct, remarks, and all surrounding circumstances." State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 837 (Iowa 2008).

  2. State v. Lopez

    907 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2018)   Cited 58 times

    In State v. Jorgensen , we concluded the first element of indecent exposure "requires the defendant to expose or ‘cause to be visible or open to view’ his or her genitals or pubes to someone other than a spouse." 758 N.W.2d 830, 835 (Iowa 2008). See generally State v. Lane , 743 N.W.2d 178, 182 (Iowa 2007) (" ‘[W]e may refer to prior decisions of this court and others, similar statutes, dictionary definitions, and common usage’ to determine [the statute’s] meaning."

  3. State v. Spivey

    832 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)

    The actor knew, or under the circumstances should have known, the victim would be offended. See State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008); see alsoIowa Code § 709.9. Spivey on appeal only challenges the evidence of the first and second elements-that the victim was not his spouse and that he exposed himself to arouse his or the victim's sexual desires. We review a sufficiency-of-theevidence challenge for correction of errors at law.

  4. State v. Klemme

    801 N.W.2d 628 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Noting a district associate judge could preside over serious misdemeanor case even though, because of recidivist enhancement, defendant faced potential punishment of incarceration for up to ten years

    Evidence is substantial if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, it would convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008). We consider all evidence, not just inculpatory evidence, and if the evidence only raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture, it is not substantial.

  5. State v. McCullah

    787 N.W.2d 90 (Iowa 2010)   Cited 40 times
    Stating that ambiguity may arise “from the general scope and meaning of the statute when all of its provisions are examined” (quoting Carolan, 553 N.W.2d at 887)

    We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for the correction of errors at law. State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008). We will uphold a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal if the record contains substantial evidence supporting the defendant's conviction.

  6. State v. Vanfossen

    No. 23-0019 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2024)

    Therefore, we permit the fact finder to infer the requisite intent that a person acted with the purpose to arouse or gratify the person's sexual desires from the person's "conduct, remarks, and all surrounding circumstances." State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 837 (Iowa 2008); see also State v. Johnson, No. 15-0623, 2016 WL 3002866, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 25, 2016) (finding sufficient evidence to infer the defendant had the requisite sexual intent based on surrounding circumstances); State v. McAfee, No. 13-0268, 2014 WL 1494901, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2014) (finding sufficient evidence to infer the defendant filmed the victim "to arouse or gratify [his] sexual desires"); State v. Kuhn, No. 19-1895, 2021 WL 1017128, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2021) (finding "[b]ased on [the defendant]'s conduct, his remarks, and the surrounding circumstances, there is ample evidence to support the jury's conclusion [the defendant] acted to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires in recording the three girls").

  7. State v. Bright

    No. 17-1454 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018)

    "Sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are reviewed for correction of errors at law." State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008). III.

  8. State v. Osborn

    No. 16-1066 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2018)

    This court must uphold the district court's verdict if that verdict is supported by substantial evidence. See State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008); State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006). "Evidence is substantial if it would convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

  9. State v. Kuester

    888 N.W.2d 682 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    In his view, his acts "were private, not public" because he was inside his vehicle. The Iowa Supreme Court rejected a similar argument in State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 836 (Iowa 2008). Citing a predecessor statute, the court explained that indecent exposure could occur where the exposure was "in such a place or under such circumstances that the exhibition is liable to be seen by others."

  10. State v. Eggers

    No. 15-0265 (Iowa Ct. App. May. 25, 2016)

    The finding below is "binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence." State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 834 (Iowa 2008). We consider all the evidence and the record in the light most favorable to the factfinder's decision and draw all legitimate inferences in support of the verdict.