IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1984

Filed January 23, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MAWEA RIAL KOAT,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.

Mawea Koat appeals following the denial of his motion for a new trial. 

AFFIRMED.

Ronald W. Kepford, Winterset, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Katie Krickbaum, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2020).
2

MAHAN, Senior Judge.

Following a jury trial, Mawea Koat was convicted of operating while 

intoxicated, third offense.1 Koat moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was 

contrary to the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, the district court 

denied the motion. Koat appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion 

in denying his motion for a new trial because the jury verdict was contrary to the 

weight of the evidence. He also contends the court applied an incorrect standard 

in ruling on his motion. 

We review the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial on weight-ofthe-evidence grounds for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Neiderbach, 837 

N.W.2d 180, 190 (Iowa 2013). An abuse of discretion will only be found where 

“the district court exercised its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly 

untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 

199, 202 (Iowa 2003). Where a claim is made that the verdict is contrary to the 

weight of the evidence, “the verdict may be set aside and a new trial granted” if 

“the court reaches the conclusion that the verdict is contrary to the weight of the 

evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted.” State v. Serrato, 

787 N.W.2d 462, 472 (Iowa 2010) (quoting State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 658–59 

(Iowa 1998)). “A verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence where ‘a greater 

amount of credible evidence supports one side of an issue or cause than the 

other.’” State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Ellis, 578 

N.W.2d at 658). We review Koat’s claim that the court failed to apply the proper 

 

1 Koat was also convicted of driving while barred and interference with official acts.
3

standard in ruling on his motion for new trial for errors at law. State v. Ary, 877 

N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa 2016).

The jury was instructed the State was required to prove the following 

elements: (1) Koat operated a motor vehicle and (2) at that time, he was under the 

influence of alcohol. On appeal, Koat only challenges the weight of the evidence 

in relation to the second element, that he was under the influence of alcohol at the 

time he operated the motor vehicle.

The evidence presented at trial establishes the following: Urbandale police 

officer Brady Farrington was on routine patrol just after midnight on February 25, 

2018, when he observed a vehicle with a broken rear-license-plate light. 

Farrington ran the license plate and learned the owner of the vehicle had an outof-state arrest warrant,2 so he conducted a traffic stop. The vehicle turned into an 

apartment complex, and Koat, its sole occupant, exited and began walking toward 

the apartment despite Farrington’s commands to stop and “stay in the car.” 

Farrington caught up to Koat and drew his taser, commanding Koat to get on the 

ground. Instead, Koat kept repeating, “What did I do?” and he “refused to answer 

any questions.” After several minutes, Koat complied with the officer’s command 

to get on his knees. Koat said he had a suspended license. 

As Farrington placed handcuffs on Koat, he noticed Koat “smelled of 

alcohol.” As they spoke, the officer noticed Koat “had a heavy, thick slurred 

speech” and observed “his eyes were bloodshot and watery.” Based on his 

observations and interactions with Koat, Farrington opined “he was intoxicated.” 

 

2 Officer Farrington later learned Koat was not the registered owner of the vehicle.
4

At the police station, Koat refused to perform field sobriety tests, and he refused 

the preliminary and chemical breath tests. Farrington was the only witness who 

testified at trial, and Farrington’s squad-car and body-camera video footage was 

the only exhibit introduced at trial. 

Upon our review and weighing of the evidence, we find the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in denying Koat’s motion for a new trial because the verdict 

was not contrary to the weight of the evidence; in other words, this is not the rare 

case in which the verdict runs contrary to the weight of the evidence. See State v.

Benson, 919 N.W.2d 237, 243 (Iowa 2018). Farrington’s testimony was consistent, 

credible, and supportive of the verdict. The squad-car and body-camera videos 

corroborated his account of Koat’s actions. Finding no abuse of discretion, we 

affirm the district court’s denial of Koat’s motion for new trial.

Koat also contends the court “did not conclude that the jury found that a 

greater amount of credible evidence supported a finding of guilt,” rather, the court 

“merely said that there was ‘sufficient’ evidence.” In ruling on Koat’s motion, the 

court discussed the new-trial standard at length.3 Although the court did mention 

the phrase “sufficient evidence,” it is clear from the court’s discussion as a whole 

that it did not apply a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard to Koat’s motion. Cf.

State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 560 (Iowa 2006) (“[T]he district court improperly 

 

3 The court began by stating, “Well, as the parties know, the discretion of the trial 

court should be exercised in all cases in the interest of justice and where it appears 

to the judge that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” The court further 

stated, “In other words, if a court reaches a conclusion that the verdict was contrary

to the weight of the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice may have resulted, 

the verdict can be set aside and a new trial granted.” The court determined, “In 

this case, while it is a close call with respect to the evidence, I do find that the 

weight of the evidence supports the finding by the jury.”
5

used the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard rather than the weight-of-theevidence standard in ruling on Nitcher’s motion for new trial.”). We conclude the 

court applied the correct weight-of-the-evidence standard, and we affirm on this 

issue. 

AFFIRMED.