IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0689
Filed November 9, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JT RING,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Gary E. Wenell,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from his convictions for operating while intoxicated
and assault on a peace officer. AFFIRMED.
Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindman, Hisey & Daane, Sioux
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
JT Ring appeals from his convictions for operating while intoxicated and
assault on a peace officer.1 Ring maintains the State failed to present substantial
evidence to support his conviction for either of the crimes. In the alternative, he
maintains neither conviction is supported by the weight of the evidence and the
district court should have granted his motion for a new trial.
First, we consider whether Ring preserved his claims regarding the
sufficiency of the evidence; the State urges us to find that he has not.
“To preserve error on a claim of insufficient evidence for appellate review
in a criminal case, the defendant must make a motion for judgment of acquittal at
trial that identifies the specific grounds raised on appeal.” State v. Truesdell, 679
N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2004). Here, Ring moved for acquittal twice. Following
the close of the State’s evidence, the court asked if there was a record that Ring
would like to make, and his counsel stated, “Yes, your honor. Defense would
move for a motion of acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence.” Similarly,
following the close of all evidence, Ring’s counsel stated, “Your honor, defense
renews their motion of acquittal at close of all evidence.”
Because Ring did not challenge the evidence supporting specific
elements—or even the specific charges—his motions for acquittal did not
preserve his claims. See id. (finding the defendant’s claim of insufficient
evidence was not preserved where counsel had “moved for a judgment of
acquittal at the close of the State’s case and again at the close of all the
1
In connection with the same events, Ring entered a guilty plea to driving while his
license was barred. He does not challenge this conviction on appeal.
3
evidence. However, he failed to specifically raise the sufficiency of the evidence
claim now raised on appeal.”); cf. State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa
2005) (recognizing “an exception to the general error-preservation rule when the
record indicates that the grounds for a motion were obvious and understood by
the trial court and counsel,” where the defendant was only charged with one
crime, and the disputed elements were limited).
Thus, we consider the merits of only Ring’s weight-of-the-evidence claims.
Ring maintains the weight of the evidence presented at trial did not support his
conviction for operation while intoxicated or assaulting a peace officer. We
review a weight-of-the-evidence challenge for an abuse of discretion by the trial
court. State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa 2003). We do not decide
anew the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Id.
Regarding his conviction for operating while intoxicated, Ring maintains
the weight of the evidence does not support the jury’s finding that he was under
the influence while operating the vehicle. Three police officers testified at trial;
each testified that he was able to smell alcohol emanating from Ring’s person
and that Ring spoke in a slurred speech while having bloodshot, watery eyes.
Each testified he believed Ring had been drinking alcohol on the night in
question, and two of the officers—those specially trained in drug detection as
well as alcohol detection—testified that they also believed Ring was on some
type of stimulant, such as cocaine or methamphetamine. They noted that he was
very aggressive with tense muscles, that he appeared to be in a euphoric state—
at one point demanding an officer take his hands off of him when it was clear no
4
one was touching him—and that he was grinding his teeth; each was a symptom
they are trained to notice as part of their drug-recognition training.
Ring questions the credibility of the officers. He tries to impeach them
with the differences among their reports—stating they could smell alcohol or “a
faint odor of alcohol”—and their testimony at trial—stating they noticed a “strong
smell” of alcohol coming from Ring. While we note the difference in the two
statements, the officers did not change their stance regarding the fact that they
were able to smell alcohol on Ring. Ring’s explanation of his actions was to
imply that his actions were the result of mental illness rather than intoxication.
The only evidence regarding possible issues with mental illness was the
testimony of Ring’s mother, who testified, “JT doesn’t act like that if he’s on his
medication and things, but I have observed JT without his medication like this.”
She then testified that she thought JT had not been taking his medication and
that he had some trouble obtaining it. There was no other evidence regarding
what medication JT may or may not have been prescribed or for what purpose he
took the medication.
Additionally, on appeal, Ring focuses on the fact that both his mother and
sister testified that they did not smell alcohol emanating from Ring on the night in
question. However, the State played the recording of the call Ring’s sister made
to the police, in which she told the operator that her brother had been driving
around, “and he was intoxicated.” Similarly, in the video from the first officer’s
squad car, Ring’s sister can be heard yelling at Ring for being drunk. Regarding
Ring’s mother, after she testified she thought Ring’s behavior was the result of
him not taking his medication, the State asked Ring’s mother to re-read the
5
witness statement she provided the police that night, and Ring’s mother agreed
she had written that when Ring arrived at her house, “he had been drinking or
something.”
Here, the jury was free to find the testimony of the police officers more
credible than the testimony of Ring’s family members, especially in light of the
fact that the family members’ testimony seemed to be at odds with statements
they made to Ring and law enforcement on the night in question. See State v.
Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006) (“Inherent in our standard of review of
jury verdicts in criminal cases is the recognition that the jury was free to reject
certain evidence, and credit other evidence.” (citation omitted)); see also State v.
Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 609 (Iowa 2001) (“Whether a witness has ‘any personal
interest, motive or purpose to remember so as to shade meanings of words and
actions relating to the testimony’ is highly relevant to the witness’s credibility.”
(citation omitted)). With these things in mind, we cannot say the district court
abused its discretion when it denied Ring’s weight-of-the-evidence challenge.
Regarding his conviction for assaulting a peace officer, Ring maintains the
weight of the evidence does not support the determination that he formed, or was
able to form, the specific intent to spit at one of the officers. As we said above,
there was almost no evidence to support Ring’s argument that he was unable to
form intent due to some unnamed mental illness. Each of the three officers
testified that Ring was highly agitated, cursing profusely, and making threatening
comments to officers, including that he would bite them. “[I]ntent may be inferred
from the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault.” State v. Taylor, 689
N.W.2d 116, 132 (Iowa 2004). Here, Ring threatened, in so many words, to
6
assault the officers and then followed through with an offensive action. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the weight of the evidence
supported Ring’s conviction for assaulting a peace officer.
Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm Ring’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.