IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1748
Filed August 2, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CARLOS ENRIQUE GARCIA CARRERA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Timothy T.
Jarman, District Associate Judge.
Carlos Garcia Carrera appeals his conviction for indecent contact with a
child. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary C. Miller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Carlos Garcia Carrera appeals his conviction for indecent contact with a
child, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.12(1) (2015). He claims the evidence
was insufficient to convict him, or in the alternative, the weight of the evidence
was contrary to the verdict. We find the evidence was sufficient and the weight
of the evidence supported the verdict. We affirm the district court.
On April 11, 2015, Garcia Carrera’s daughter, K.G., her friend, J.K., and
another friend, A.N., were having a sleepover at the defendant’s house. The girls
were all about eleven years old. Garcia Carrera took the children to a park
where they played and ate while he sat in his car. Garcia Carrera got out of his
car and began climbing up an enclosed slide as a joke. J.K. slid down the same
slide and collided with Garcia Carrera. Garcia Carrera then touched J.K.’s breast
and “French kissed” her cheek. J.K. testified Garcia Carrera slowly slid his hand
under her shirt and bra and “would slowly go out and then back and then out in a
weird manner.” Garcia Carrera claims he accidentally came in contact with her
breast while trying to remove himself from the slide.
J.K. climbed up the slide crying, and Garcia Carrera paced nervously at
the bottom of the slide. J.K. did not want to return to Garcia Carrera’s house, so
he took the children to his daughter’s grandmother’s house. The next day J.K.
told A.N. that Garcia Carrera had fondled her breast while kissing her on the
cheek. A.N. told her mother, who then informed J.K.’s parents, and the police
were notified.
3
On April 14, Garcia Carrera went unannounced to the Sioux City Police
Station to give a statement. The police were unable to take a statement until a
later date. On July 12, he was charged with indecent contact with a child.
Garcia Carrera pled not guilty, waiving his right to a speedy trial and jury trial. He
filed a motion in limine regarding, among other issues, evidence of previous
inappropriate touching of J.K. and any attempts to “groom” J.K.1 After a hearing
on the limine motions, the district court held the evidence of prior touching was
admissible subject to objection.
A bench trial was held on June 9, 2016. The district court found Garcia
Carrera guilty and specifically noted he “did reach inside the clothing of J.K. and
intentionally fondled her breast while, very close in time, kissing her on the
cheek.” The district court also found “the testimony by J.K. to be both credible
and compelling. The same cannot be said of the defendant’s statements.”
Garcia Carrera now appeals, claiming the evidence was insufficient to convict, or
in the alternative, the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Claims evidence is insufficient are reviewed for correction of errors at law.
State v. Thomas, 847 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 2014) (quoting State v. Sanford,
814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012)). We consider the entirety of the record in the
light most favorable to the State, and the verdict will be upheld if it is supported
by substantial evidence. See id. Evidence is substantial if “when viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational jury that the defendant
is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. Claims the verdict was contrary to the
1
J.K. told authorities that Garcia Carrera had often rubbed up against her when passing
her and would kiss J.K. on the cheek. J.K. also testified Garcia Carrera “grabbed [her]
butt under [her] shorts on top of [her] underwear, and started . . . groping [her].”
4
weight of the evidence are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See State v.
Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 821 (Iowa 1997). We will grant a new trial only when the
verdict was “contrary to the weight of the evidence and a miscarriage of justice
may have resulted.” State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 253 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
Garcia Carrera claims the evidence was not sufficient to prove he fondled
J.K.’s breasts with the intent to arouse or satisfy his sexual desires. We
disagree. The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, supports
the district court’s finding. Garcia Carrera placed his hand under J.K.’s clothing,
made skin-to-skin contact with her breast, and slowly ran his hand back and forth
while he “French kissed” her cheek. J.K. testified it was not accidental contact as
the defendant’s actions were slow and deliberate and he never attempted to get
up or leave the slide. J.K. also testified Garcia Carrera previously touched her
inappropriately when she had visited his home. The defendant’s actions
immediately after the act, pacing nervously at the bottom of the slide, show
remorse and recognition the act was inappropriate. This evidence could
convince a trier of fact the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We
find the evidence was sufficient.
The defendant also claims the weight of the evidence weighs so heavily
against his conviction that to uphold it would be a miscarriage of justice. We
again disagree. The evidence above does not indicate any miscarriage of
justice. The district court noted it gave J.K.’s testimony great weight while finding
the defendant’s testimony not credible or compelling. New trials should be
granted “only in exceptional circumstances.” State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 705
5
(Iowa 2016). We find no exceptional circumstances here, nor do we find the
verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accordingly, pursuant to Iowa
Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d), and (e), we affirm.
AFFRIMED.