Opinion
No. 4-501 / 03-1485.
July 28, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, James A. Weaver and John G. Mullen, District Associate Judges.
Defendant-appellant Charles Lahr appeals his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for driving while barred, in violation of Iowa Code sections 321.560 and 321.561 (2003). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, Gary Allison, County Attorney, and Korie Shippee, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
Defendant-appellant Charles Lahr appeals his conviction and sentence, following a jury trial, for driving while barred, in violation of Iowa Code sections 321.560 and 321.561 (2003). On appeal defendant claims that due to the State's failure to request the court to note for the record that two witnesses identified him as the driver, there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
On March 29, 2003 at approximately 7 p.m., the driver of a Jeep crashed into David Willard as he was making a left-hand turn. As Willard got out of his car to inspect the damage, the other driver reversed the Jeep and sped off. It was dusk at the time, but a streetlight was directly over the scene of the accident. Willard testified he observed the driver for approximately ten to thirty seconds. At trial Willard identified an individual in the courtroom wearing a gray and blue sweatshirt as the person who had driven the Jeep. The record did not reflect which individual in the courtroom Willard had identified.
Muscatine Police Officer Matt Bowers found the Jeep parked in a driveway. The Jeep was registered to Mary Lahr. Mary Lahr told Officer Bowers she had lent the Jeep to Shane Fuller. Ten minutes after the initial call to police, Shane Fuller was at his house, approximately one to two miles from the location of the parked Jeep. He did not appear to have been exerting himself.
On March 30 Officer Bowers made contact with defendant. Officer Bowers said defendant was white, his hair was brown and curled out from under his hat, he had a "goatee, mustache," and he appeared to be in his thirties. Officer Bowers testified defendant matched the description of the Jeep's driver given by Willard. Officer Bowers also testified defendant had scratches all over his body. Testimony indicated there was a wooded area between the place where the Jeep was parked and the Lahrs's home. When asked if "Mr. Lahr" was in the courtroom, Officer Bowers said he was "sitting at the far end of the room in the gray and blue shirt." The prosecutor did not request the court to make the record reflect whom Officer Bowers had pointed out.
Defendant conceded at trial that his license was suspended. The only issue at trial was whether he was the driver of the Jeep. Besides the testimony of Officer Bowers and Willard, the State introduced testimony by Shane Fuller that defendant had been at Fuller's house earlier the day of the accident and that he had left alone, presumably in the Jeep. Defendant testified to the contrary that Fuller had dropped him off the evening of the accident at an apartment on Logan Street where he was living temporarily. Pamela Brown testified she saw defendant and Fuller leave defendant's house at approximately 6 p.m. the day of the accident, and Fuller was driving. Trisha Brown similarly testified Fuller was driving the Jeep when it left the Lahr house around 6 p.m. the day of the accident.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. See State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2001). We are bound by a jury verdict if it contains substantial evidence of guilt. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence which would convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Iowa 1996).
III. ANALYSIS
At issue here is whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding defendant was the driver of the Jeep in spite of the fact that the record did not reflect which individual in the courtroom two of the witnesses indicated was the driver.
Although the record did not reflect that Willard and Bowers specifically pointed to defendant as the driver of the car, we conclude, considering all of the facts and circumstances, there was sufficient evidence to find he was the driver of the Jeep and convict him of the driving while suspended charge. See United States v. Weed, 689 F.2d 752, 754-57 (7th Cir. 1982).
Willard stated the driver of the car was an individual in the courtroom wearing a gray and blue sweatshirt. In answering the question whether the defendant looked different the day of trial than "that other time [Willard] saw him," Willard answered that his facial hair had not been as trimmed as it was the day of trial. Bowers, in answering whether "Mr. Lahr" was in the courtroom, stated he was "sitting at the far end of the room in the gray and blue shirt." He further said, "It looks like his goatee might be trimmed a little bit." There was no suggestion the "Mr. Lahr" in the gray and blue shirt with the trimmed facial hair was a different person than the "Mr. Lahr" on trial. When a witness testifies to the defendant's actions without pointing out that the wrong man has been brought to trial, it is permissible to make an inference of identity. Id. at 755; see also United States v. Alexander, 48 F.3rd 1477, 1490 (9th Cir. 1995). Furthermore, defendant acknowledged under oath that Willard and Fuller identified him to the jury as the driver of the car, and both the prosecuting and defense attorneys made alternating references at trial to "Mr. Lahr" and "defendant."
Apart from the disputed in-court identifications, additional evidence indicated defendant was the driver. He had scratches all over him, and there were woods between the place where the car was parked and defendant's house. The individual defendant points to as the driver was found, ten minutes after the initial call reporting the accident, at his house at least a mile away from the parked car in pajamas, and he showed no signs of exertion.
There was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for driving while suspended.
AFFIRMED.