IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0562

Filed June 11, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHARLES LEE WEDDINGTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, 

Judge.

The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 

conviction of willful injury cause a serious injury. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Katie A. Fiala, Assistant Attorney 

General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Lisa Schaefer, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., Potterfield, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
2

DANILSON, C.J.

Charles Weddington challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support 

his conviction of willful injury causing a serious injury, in violation of Iowa Code 

sections 708.4(1) and 708.8(8) (2011). Because the jury could reasonably 

determine that Weddington had the specific intent to cause serious injury, we 

affirm the conviction.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On June 18, 2012, Weddington was charged with attempted murder, 

willful injury, and going armed with intent. The matter was tried to a jury on 

January 30, 2013.

At trial, Weddington admitted to striking Trent Ramsdell in the head with a 

metal torque wrench. He testified he had “just stopped thinking” and had “pretty 

much lost it” before hitting Ramsdell. A coworker testified the wrench in question 

weighed five or six pounds. A witness to the attack testified he witnessed 

Weddington calmly walk up behind Ramsdell while holding the wrench, he then 

“kind of double handed it over his shoulder into the back of [Ramsdell’s] head.” 

When asked to clarify, the witness stated, “It appeared to me at the time like it 

was a full over-the-shoulder swing down onto [Ramsdell], not like it was a—you 

know, a brushing tap or anything. It was a hard hit.” Ramsdell testified that he 

suffered “a skull fracture, a hematoma, and some air pockets around the brain” 

as a result of the attack. 

On February 1, 2013, the jury returned a verdict of assault with intent to 

inflict serious injury—a lesser-included offense of attempted murder, willful injury 

causing serious injury, and going armed with intent. The conviction for assault 
3

with intent to inflict serious injury merged with the willful injury causing serious 

injury, so the court did not enter judgment on the former count. 

On March 18, 2013, the court sentenced Weddington to an indeterminate 

term of incarceration not to exceed ten years for the willful-injury-causingserious-injury conviction. He was also sentenced to an indeterminate term of 

incarceration not to exceed five years for going armed with intent. The court set 

the two terms of incarceration to run concurrently. Weddington appeals. 

II. Standard of Review.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for errors at law. 

State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). We review the evidence “in 

the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may 

be deduced from” it to determine whether the finding of guilt is supported by 

substantial evidence and should be upheld. Id. Evidence is substantial if it 

would convince a rational fact-finder of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Id.

III. Discussion.

Weddington’s only claim on appeal is that the State failed to present

sufficient evidence to support the specific intent element of his conviction for 

willful injury causing serious injury.1 He claims the attack was “an emotional 

response to ongoing harassment by Ramsdell.”

 

1 The court instructed the jury:

[T]he State must prove all of the following numbered elements of the 

crime of Willful Injury (Causing Serious Injury):

1. On or about the 10th day of June, 2012, the Defendant 

assaulted Trent Ramsdell by striking him in the head with a metal torque 

wrench.
4

Determination of intent or mens rea is frequently an element of criminal 

law, and our system often relies on juries to make this determination. State v. 

Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 837 (Iowa 2010). “Because it is difficult to prove 

intent by direct evidence, proof of intent usually consists of circumstantial 

evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” Id. “A 

[defendant] will generally not admit later to having the intention which the crime 

requires . . . his thoughts must be gathered from his words (if any) and actions in 

light of surrounding circumstances.” State v. Radeke, 444 N.W.2d 476, 478–79 

(Iowa 1989). The jury is free to credit certain evidence and reject other. State v. 

Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 556 (Iowa 2006).

We conclude a rational jury could infer Weddington had a specific intent to 

seriously injury Ramsdell. Although Weddington testified he was not thinking at 

the time of the attack, he admitted he walked over from the area he was working 

to where Ramsdell stood and intentionally struck him in the back of the head with 

a metal torque wrench weighing five or six pounds. Furthermore, Weddington’s 

claim the attack was an emotional response does not contradict the jury finding 

he intended to seriously injure Ramsdell. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

2. The Defendant specifically intended to cause serious injury to 

Trent Ramsdell.

3. The Defendant’s act caused Trent Ramsdell to sustain a 

serious injury.