Opinion
No. 2-091 / 01-0355.
Filed May 31, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Timothy O'Grady, Judge.
Ronald Newman appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for first-degree robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1(1) and 711.2 (1999). AFFIRMED.
Eric Parrish of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery, Boles Gribble, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Crowl, County Attorney, and Christopher Wilson, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Ronald Newman appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for first-degree robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1(1) and 711.2 (1999). On appeal, Newman contends the district court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite specific intent for first-degree robbery and in overruling his motion to adjudicate law points. He further contends the cumulative effects of the district court's errors denied him a fair trial. We affirm.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
A reasonable juror could find the following facts from the record in this case. On September 15, 2000, Newman and his co-defendant, Michael McNabb, entered the Pizza King restaurant in Council Bluffs wearing t-shirts over their heads. Newman, a former employee, pointed a gun at the manager and demanded money while McNabb kept guard. The manager retrieved cash from a safe and a file cabinet containing register drawers. McNabb and Newman departed the restaurant with the money in a garbage can. Customers at a nearby restaurant reported the crime and police spotted a vehicle in which McNabb and Newman were riding. A chase ensured, during which Newman threw the gun and a t-shirt from the car window. After approximately ten minutes, the chase ended. Inside the car, police found a garbage can containing cash and Pizza King receipts.
Newman was charged with robbery in the first degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1(1) and 711.2. He filed a notice of diminished capacity defense. In support of his defense, Newman called Dr. Gary Larsen, a clinical psychologist, who had evaluated him as a juvenile in 1996 and 1997. The jury found Newman guilty as charged. Newman appeals.
II. Merits.
Newman contends there was insufficient evidence from which the jury could find he had the specific intent to commit a theft, an element of first-degree robbery. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000). We will uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational trier of fact could find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, but consider all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports the verdict. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Iowa 2000). Circumstantial and direct evidence are equally probative. State v. Boley, 456 N.W.2d 674, 679 (Iowa 1990).
In particular, Newman maintains Dr. Larsen's testimony regarding diminished capacity precluded a finding of specific intent. We disagree. We find a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Newman had the requisite specific intent to commit theft. When asked to comment on Newman's mental capacity to form intent, Dr. Larsen opined, "Well, he is able to form an intent and carry out his intention, you know, in very basic terms. He is able to do that, yes." Furthermore, the State presented evidence Newman was a former employee of Pizza King familiar with its operating procedures. Newman and McNabb robbed the restaurant at 11:45 p.m. on Friday evening when the manager was present to inventory delivery items, the back door was open to delivery people, and the business was closed to the public. Additionally, the manager testified Newman appeared to know additional money was kept in a file cabinet in his office.
Moreover, Newman attempted to conceal his identity by wearing a t-shirt over his head. Likewise, Newman discarded his disguise and weapon while fleeing from police. See State v. Brokaw, 342 N.W.2d 864, 865 (Iowa 1984) (holding "evidence of his conduct in leaving the scene or locality may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the act and the intent and purpose for which that act was committed"). Accordingly, the district court did not err in overruling Newman's motions for judgment of acquittal.
Newman further argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to adjudicate law points contending the jury should be given an instruction on the penalties that are imposed upon the offenses charged. In support of this contention, Newman's brief contains one sentence devoid of any authority. We find error has been waived on this issue and decline to address it. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)( c) ("Failure in the brief to state, to argue or to cite authority in support of an issue may be deemed waiver on that issue.")
Finally, Newman asserts the cumulative effect of all of the district court's errors deprived him of a fair trial. We have determined the district court did not err in its rulings on the issues decided in this appeal and therefore find no reversible cumulative error. See State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 785 (Iowa 1999) ("We reject this argument because we have determined that no errors were committed in the trial court . . .").
AFFIRMED.