Opinion
No. 4-329 / 03-1952
May 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Daniel P. Wilson, Judge.
Defendant appeals from her conviction and sentence for arson in the first degree. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, and Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Toni Lee Sharp appeals from her conviction and sentence for arson in the first degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 712.1 and 712.2 (2003). Finding sufficient evidence in the record, we affirm.
Background Facts.
On August 3, 2003 at approximately 3:00 a.m., Toni Lee Sharp went to the residence of Dennis Shilling looking for her friend Brenda Newberry. Shilling informed Sharp that Newberry was not there. An argument ensued. A few minutes after Sharp left, Shilling smelled smoke and discovered a fire on the side of his house. Following a jury trial, Sharp was convicted of first-degree arson in violation of Iowa Code section 712.1 and 712.2 and sentenced to a term not to exceed twenty-five years. Sharp appeals.
Scope of Review.
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors at law. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 610 (Iowa 2001). A verdict is upheld if supported by substantial evidence, which means evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt. Id. We view the totality of the record in the light most favorable to the State, drawing any and all legitimate inferences that can be reasonably deduced from the evidence. State v. Williams, 574 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1998). We must consider all of the evidence and not just the evidence supporting the guilty verdict.
Discussion.
Sharp argues that while the evidence supports arson, there was not sufficient evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that she is the person who started the fire. The State contends that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sharp was in fact the perpetrator.
The testimony of Shilling and Newberry, and the story Sharp reported to the police are conflicting. Shilling testified that his friend Skip Poncy had been at his home that night and they were drinking. Poncy left about the time Sharp arrived looking for Newberry. Shilling informed Sharp that Newberry was not at the residence, at which point Sharp became upset calling Shilling a liar. They argued and Shilling repeatedly asked Sharp to leave. Sharp refused. Shilling claims he then called Newberry but Newberry did not speak with Sharp. Shilling testified that before leaving, Sharp threatened to burn down his house. A few minutes after Sharp left, Shilling smelled smoke and discovered the outside of his house was on fire. Shilling reported the fire and accused Sharp of starting it. Contrary to Shilling's testimony, Newberry testified that she is the one who initiated the telephone call to Shilling and she did speak with Sharp during the call. Newberry stated Sharp did not understand why Shilling wanted her to leave and seemed upset by this; Newberry told Sharp to leave Shilling's residence. After Sharp left Shilling's residence Newberry called back and Shilling told Newberry that Sharp had set his home on fire. Newberry testified that Sharp arrived at her house about thirty minutes after she spoke with Sharp on the telephone at Shilling's house. Sharp denied starting a fire at the Shilling residence. Newberry further testified that she later contacted Shilling, at Sharp's request, and Shilling stated he thought someone else started the fire but did not say who. However, Newberry also stated that both Shilling and Sharp were her friends and she wanted to help both of them if she could.
Officer Mark Connors testified that he questioned Sharp about the fire a day or so later. Sharp told Officer Connors that when she arrived at Shilling's house, Shilling and Skip Poncy were using drugs. Poncy offered Sharp drugs in exchange for sex. Sharp turned down Poncy's offer and left. Officer Connors also testified that during the interview Sharp smoked a cigarette which she lit with a BIC lighter.
The question before us is not whether the evidence in the record unequivocally mandates a conviction, but whether the entire record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, would allow a rational jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 610 (Iowa 2001). While there were no witnesses to the setting of the fire, there are some facts not in dispute. Sharp was at Shilling's home just before the fire was discovered; she was upset according to both Shilling and Newberry; she was a smoker and had a cigarette lighter on her person the next day at the police station; and Shilling told the officer on the scene of the threat Sharp had made to burn down his home. Some of this evidence is direct and some is circumstantial but both are equally probative so long as they give rise to a fair inference of guilt. State v. Speicher, 625 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Iowa 2001). Given that the jury was free to accept or reject any of the evidence, State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480, 483 (Iowa 2001), and considering the deference granted to its credibility assessments, State v. Wells, 629 N.W.2d 346, 356 (Iowa 2001), we find the record contains substantial evidence in support of the verdict.