IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0759

Filed May 25, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAZMOND TURNER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton, 

District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals his conviction for eluding. AFFIRMED.

Micki Mayes of Micki M. Mayes Law Firm, Davenport, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli Huser, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

Jazmond Turner challenges his eluding conviction, contending the State 

presented insufficient proof he was the driver who willfully failed to stop after 

receiving a signal from police. Because the State presented the testimony of two 

police officers who were close enough to Turner’s vehicle to identify him as the 

driver, we find substantial evidence to uphold the conviction.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

In the afternoon of October 20, 2014, Davenport Police Officer Bryant 

Wayland pulled his patrol car into a gas station on Brady Street. He was 

investigating reports of high school students fighting in the area. While parked, 

Officer Wayland saw a gray Chevy Trailblazer pull into the station. The driver of 

the Trailblazer did not get gas or enter the store. The driver circled the gas 

pumps and left, even though pumps were available for fueling. 

The Trailblazer came within one car length of the officer, who recognized 

the driver from a previous interaction. Officer Wayland ran the license plate

number and learned the Trailblazer was registered to Jazmond Turner. The 

information provided to the officer included a driver’s license photograph of 

Turner. The photo matched the officer’s observation of the driver.

The officer also learned Turner had a temporary restricted license, which

would normally allow the driver to travel only from home to work. The officer 

noted Turner was not headed in the direction of his residence. Officer Wayland 

followed the Trailblazer, which started to slow down and pull to the side of the 

road. At this time, Officer Wayland turned on his emergency lights and briefly 

activated his siren. Before the uniformed officer could open his door, the 
3

Trailblazer “took off at a high rate of speed.” Officer Wayland called dispatch to 

report Turner’s action and the Trailblazer’s license plate number.

After hearing the dispatch, Officer Robert Welch saw the Trailblazer

stopped at a stop sign. Office Welch also ran the license plate and viewed the 

same driver’s license photo of Turner. Officer Welch testified he was five to eight 

feet away from the Trailblazer and saw the driver through an open window. He 

believed the driver matched Turner’s license photo. Officer Welch also 

recognized Turner from a prior interaction. He then radioed to Officer Wayland 

the location where he had seen the Trailblazer but did not pull the vehicle over. 

Because of a departmental policy regarding high-speed chases, neither officer 

pursued the Trailblazer. 

A short time later, another officer responded to the address listed on the 

Trailblazer’s registration and found the vehicle parked there. Turner, who was 

twenty-five years old, testified he lived at that address, but he denied driving the 

Trailblazer the afternoon of October 20. Turner testified he let his eighteen-yearold brother use it that day.

The State charged Turner by trial information with serious misdemeanor 

eluding or attempt to elude, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(1) (2013),

as well as driving in violation of a restricted license, in violation of Iowa Code 

section 321.193. Turner appeared for a jury trial on April 6, 2015. At the 

conclusion of the State’s case, the district court dismissed the restricted-license 

count in response to Turner’s motion for judgment of acquittal. On the eluding 

count, Turner argued the State offered “insufficient evidence to identify Turner as 

the driver of the Trailblazer when it drove off from Officer Wayland.” The court 
4

allowed the eluding count to be decided by the jury. The jury found Turner guilty 

of eluding, and he now appeals that conviction. 

II. Standard of Review

We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of legal error. 

State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 431 (Iowa 2014). In determining if the 

evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict, we consider “all of the record 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all reasonable 

inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.” State v. Showens, 845 

N.W.2d 436, 439–40 (Iowa 2014). If substantial evidence supports the verdict, 

we will uphold it. Id. at 440.

III. Substantial-Evidence Analysis

Turner argues his conviction should be reversed because the State did not 

offer substantial evidence to show he was driving the Trailblazer when it eluded 

Officer Wayland. He points to his trial testimony that he allowed his brother to 

borrow his vehicle around noon, and he did not see it again until 4:00 p.m. when 

it was parked at his house. Turner testified he looks very similar to his brother. 

Turner acknowledges both Officer Wayland and Officer Welch identified 

him as the driver of the Trailblazer at trial. But Turner claims on appeal it was 

“unreasonable” to believe they “got a good look” at him given the timing and their 

concentration on retrieving the vehicle registration. The officers were not 

hesitant in affirming that it was Turner who they saw behind the wheel that day. 

Viewing those identifications in the light most favorable to the State, the 

district court properly allowed the jury to determine whose testimony to believe. 

See State v. Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d 493, 503 (Iowa 1997) (recognizing witness 
5

credibility is generally left to the jurors). “The jury is free to believe or disbelieve 

any testimony as it chooses and to give weight to the evidence as in its judgment 

such evidence should receive. In fact, the very function of the jury is to sort out 

the evidence and ‘place credibility where it belongs.’” State v. Thornton, 498 

N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993) (quoting State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416, 419–20 

(Iowa 1984)). We find no reason to disturb the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.