IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0486

Filed October 11, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MARVIN OSWALDO ESCOBAR ORELLANA,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David Porter, Judge.

A defendant appeals his convictions for first-degree murder. AFFIRMED.

Gary Dickey of Dickey, Campbell, & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke and Olivia D. Brooks, 

Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Heard by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

Rossibeth Flores-Rodriguez and her two young children died from closerange gunshot wounds to their heads in the home of Marvin Oswaldo Esquivel 

Lopez. After the shootings, Lopez called 911 to report he had “big trouble” at his 

house. He said that Rossibeth had killed her two children and, when she came up 

from the basement with a gun, he took it away from her and shot her. A jury did 

not find that story credible and found Lopez guilty on three counts of first-degree 

murder.1 

Lopez appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion 

in (1) overruling his objections to the prosecutor’s argumentative questions when 

cross-examining him and (2) denying his motion for a new trial on the ground that

the verdicts were contrary to the evidence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we 

affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Hoping for a better life for her two children, eleven-year-old D.F. and fiveyear-old E.F., Rossibeth traveled from Honduras to the United States in early 2019. 

She used a coyote to help her cross the border into Texas,2 where she was 

detained by immigration officials. Rossibeth contacted Lopez and his wife, Mariah, 

who agreed to let her live with them at their home in Iowa while she waited for her 

1 Although Lopez was charged by trial information under two names—Marvin 

Oswaldo Esquivel Lopez and Marvin Oswaldo Escobar Orellana—the parties 

agreed to refer to him by his former name at the jury trial. We will do the same on 

appeal. 

2 A coyote is slang for a person “who smuggles immigrants into the U.S.” Coyote, 

Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coyote.
3

detention hearing. Rossibeth knew Lopez from when he lived in Honduras and 

rented a house from her mother.

Rossibeth and her children moved into Lopez’s home—a duplex with three 

bedrooms upstairs, a living room and kitchen on the main floor, and a basement. 

They settled into the basement, which was furnished with a couch, two beds, and 

a television. Lopez, Mariah, and their children lived upstairs. Lopez gave 

Rossibeth a job at his roofing company, and Mariah stayed at home with the 

children. Rossibeth needed to work because she had borrowed about $12,500 

from friends and family to pay the coyote who helped her cross the border. 

According to her mother, Rossibeth had paid back about a quarter of the debt at 

the time of her death and her payments were on time.

Rossibeth’s mother, who still lived in Honduras, talked to Rossibeth every 

day. She said that Rossibeth was “polite, loving, and respectful” and had a good 

relationship with her children. Lopez’s wife, Mariah, said the same: “She was a 

very good mom.” Rossibeth seemed happy when she first moved to Iowa, 

according to her mother. But as time went on, Rossibeth told her mother that she 

was afraid of Lopez. Rossibeth’s mother testified that “she was going to leave and 

she had everything ready” to go. But on July 16, 2019—just a few days before she

planned to move into an apartment with her boyfriend and children—Rossibeth 

and her children were shot to death. 

According to Mariah, Lopez went to work that day around 6:00 a.m. Mariah

stayed at home with her children until about 1:30 p.m., when she took them to the 

bank and store. Rossibeth and her children left at the same time. Mariah got back

around 4:00 p.m. and stayed at home for the rest of the evening. Rossibeth came 
4

home with her children at 6:00 p.m. She left again at 7:00 p.m., this time without 

her children. When Rossibeth was gone, Mariah could hear the children through 

the unfinished ceiling in the basement, laughing and watching television. The last 

time that Mariah saw Rossibeth’s children was around 8:00 p.m., when Rossibeth 

came back to the house and the children went upstairs for a drink. The families 

then went to their separate levels of the home. Before putting her children to bed 

a bit before 10:00 p.m., when Lopez got home from work, Mariah could hear 

“normal TV noises and them talking” from the basement.

Once Lopez was home, Mariah went into the kitchen to get him something

to eat while he went upstairs to change his clothes. About ten minutes later, Mariah 

said that Rossibeth came upstairs from the basement and started arguing with 

Lopez in the main-floor living room. Mariah didn’t know what they were arguing 

about because it was in Spanish, and she only speaks English. But the argument 

escalated quickly, according to Mariah: “[S]he started yelling at him and he started 

to yell back.” Then, Mariah said that Rossibeth shoved Lopez “and that’s when he 

pulls his gun out and he shoots her.” 

These loud gunshots were the only shots Mariah heard that night. Shocked 

at what had just happened, Mariah’s solitary thought was to “get out of there.” So 

she gathered her children from their beds upstairs and fled to her grandmother’s 

house about three hours away. Telling Mariah that he was sorry, Lopez stayed 

behind at the house. Once Mariah got to her grandmother’s, she called the police. 

At first, Mariah told them that she hadn’t seen anything. But she testified at trial, 

“That wasn’t true. I saw everything.” Mariah explained that she lied to the police 

because “I was freaked out. I didn’t really believe what actually happened. I was 
5

still shocked.” Mariah was in such a panic that she forgot about Rossibeth’s 

children in the basement. 

Lopez called 911 just before 11:00 p.m., reporting, “I got a family who lives 

here in the house, and the mom [she] killed the two little kids.” He said that she 

came up from the basement with a gun and “tried to fight and everything,” so he 

took the gun away and “killed her too because [she] killed the two babies.” Lopez 

stayed on the phone with the dispatcher until law enforcement arrived. The 

responding officers entered the home to find Rossibeth lying face-down on a rug 

in the living room. Lopez’s gun—a .22 caliber Ruger Mark II semiautomatic 

pistol—two live rounds, and a Tupperware container full of more live rounds were 

on a table not far from Rossibeth. In the basement, an officer found D.F. and E.F. 

shot to death. E.F. was sitting slumped-down on his bed with his back against the 

wall, while D.F. was on the floor between the two beds—somewhat hidden by the 

taller bed’s shadow—in a crouched position, with her knees up and arms covering 

her eyes. A detective investigating the shootings testified that it looked like she 

was “in a position of hiding.” Lopez was arrested and charged with three counts 

of first-degree murder.

At trial, Lopez admitted that he shot Rossibeth. But he said that it was either 

an accident or in self-defense. In the weeks before the shootings, Lopez testified

that Rossibeth had become very violent. She was supposedly angry with him 

because he refused to lend her $3000, although Lopez testified that he did loan 

Rossibeth’s boyfriend $1200 for their new apartment. On the day that she died, 

Lopez said that Rossibeth texted him around 7:00 p.m. because she was upset 

with Mariah. When he called her back about an hour later, Lopez testified that she 
6

was “very, very, very angry. Very, very angry.” Mariah agreed that Rossibeth 

seemed mad that day, but not “crazy” like Lopez described. 

Lopez testified that when he got home from work, Mariah and his children 

were gone. He thought they were out shopping at secondhand stores, which he 

said didn’t close until 10:00 p.m. Lopez testified that he went into the living room, 

sat on the couch, and grabbed the remote to watch the television. Then, according 

to Lopez, Rossibeth came upstairs from the basement with his gun and a box of 

bullets in her hand. She put the bullets on the table in the living room, pointed the 

gun at Lopez, and

began to scream. She was saying that she was going to kill me 

because I was an asshole that hadn’t loaned her $3000 and that she 

wasn’t going to give the father of her kids the satisfaction and that

she had already killed her children. That’s when she came towards 

me.

Lopez testified that he hit the gun out of Rossibeth’s hand, picked it up from 

the floor, and tried to calm her down. But she kept “yelling and yelling.” That’s 

when Lopez said that “she came on top of me and started hitting me and I was 

backing up.” As he backed up, Lopez testified that he tried to “take the magazine 

out [of the gun], but the lock was really hard.” So he “started to take the bullets out 

of the top.” He was only able to get two bullets out before Rossibeth grabbed the 

barrel of the gun and started to hit him.3 Lopez testified, “[A]nd that is when the 

gun went off with two shots.”

3 But in an interview with a detective after the murders, Lopez testified that when 

Rossibeth came upstairs from the basement, she had the gun and two bullets in 

her hand and said she was going to kill him.
7

Rossibeth’s autopsy showed that she had “a graze gunshot wound to the 

right frontal scalp” and another wound to the base of her right thumb. The medical 

examiner thought the thumb wound was a defensive injury incurred “while 

attempting to shield one’s self,” likely from the first bullet that grazed her head. 

Rossibeth also had a second gunshot wound to her right posterior temple, which 

the examiner said would have almost immediately made her collapse. That wound 

had a “curved orange to red abrasion.” The medical examiner testified that most 

likely represented “a muzzle imprint indicating the gun was most likely in contact 

with the target when the trigger was pulled.” In other words, the muzzle of the gun 

was pressed to Rossibeth’s head when it was fired. The children’s autopsies 

showed that, like their mother, they had each been shot twice in the head at close 

range.

On cross-examination, the prosecutor pushed Lopez to clarify whether he 

shot Rossibeth twice by accident or in self-defense. He claimed it was an accident: 

“It was one after the other. The things went very fast.” “When she hit my hand, 

that’s when I grabbed it, and that’s when the two shots went off.” The prosecutor 

challenged Lopez on how two bullets managed to go off, considering that a 

detective had testified that Lopez’s gun required the user to pull the trigger every 

time a bullet is fired: “One bullet [is] ejected for each squeeze of the trigger.” This 

part of Lopez’s cross-examination became contentious, with Lopez insisting, “I 

didn’t squeeze it twice. I just felt that my finger moved twice.” As the prosecutor 

continued to press Lopez on this point, his attorney repeatedly objected to the 

questioning as argumentative. The district court overruled some of the objections

and directed the prosecutor to rephrase the questions in response to others. In 
8

the end, all Lopez would say was that the two bullets struck Rossibeth 

“accidentally, because I didn’t want to shoot them.”

In closing, the State argued that Rossibeth’s death was “not an accident. 

That’s an execution. That is cold-blooded murder.” As for Lopez’s theory that 

Rossibeth shot her own children, the State argued that was inconsistent with 

Mariah’s testimony that before she left the house, the only gunshots she heard 

were the ones that killed Rossibeth:

[S]he heard gunshots exactly once, and it was when the defendant 

was shooting Rosie.[4] She didn’t hear gunshots before that. She 

didn’t hear gunshots after that.

. . . . That means that [the gunshots] happened sometime 

between the time that Mariah leaves and the police arrive. And who 

was in that house during that time, in that house and alive? Only the 

defendant. Only the defendant was there when [E.F.] and [D.F.]

were there. That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the 

shooter.

The defense challenged this theory in its closing, pointing out that Mariah 

told a different story when she first called the police and highlighting her inability 

to remember details about the shooting—“With a complete inability to tell us any 

details or have any consistency on what actually happened, was she even really 

there? It’s more likely maybe she wasn’t.” As for why a mother would shoot her 

own children, Lopez’s defense theorized that “fear made her crazy,” fear of “being 

separated or deported, something really bad and awful happening to them”

because of the money she owed back home. 

The jury rejected that theory, finding Lopez guilty as charged on all three 

counts of first-degree murder. Lopez moved for a new trial, arguing the verdicts 

4 Rossibeth also went by Rosie.
9

were contrary to the weight of the evidence. The district court denied that motion 

at sentencing, and Lopez appeals. 

II. Analysis

A. Evidentiary Rulings

Lopez claims the district court abused its discretion “in failing to sustain 

objections to the prosecutor’s repeated argumentative questions during crossexamination.” The questions highlighted by Lopez on appeal as improper are:

Q. Well, in fact, you did pull that trigger twice when you were 

pointing it at Rossibeth, did you not?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

. . . .

Mr. Lopez, the question was: Well, in fact, you did pull the 

trigger twice when you were pointing at Rossibeth, did you not?

THE WITNESS: I didn’t squeeze it twice. I just felt that my 

finger moved twice.

. . . .

Q. Mr. [Lopez], you put the muzzle of that gun to Rosie’s head 

and pulled the trigger. That wasn’t an accident, was it?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

. . . .

Q. Mr. Lopez, when you put the muzzle of the gun to the side 

of Rossibeth’s head and squeezed the trigger, that was not an 

accident, was it?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I renew the objection 

again.

. . . .

THE COURT: So, [counsel], just rephrase that question, 

please.

Q. Mr. [Lopez], when you placed the muzzle of that gun to the 

side of Rosie’s head and pulled the trigger, that was not an accident, 

was it? 

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: [Counsel], rephrase the question.

Starting from the premise that “a prosecutor is not an advocate in the normal 

meaning of the word” because of the prosecutor’s “duty to the defendant to ensure 
10

a fair trial,” Lopez claims this questioning was improper. He argues that it violated 

the prosecutor’s “‘duty to keep the record free of undue denunciations or 

inflammatory utterances’ and would ‘appeal to the passion and prejudice of the 

jury.’” (Citation omitted.) Yet in district court, Lopez only objected to the 

prosecutor’s questions as argumentative; he did not move for a mistrial or raise 

the prosecutorial-misconduct claim that he now seems to be making on appeal. 

We accordingly agree with the State that error was not preserved on any such 

claim. See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (holding that 

because the defendant only objected to a question as argumentative and “asked 

for no further relief such as a mistrial,” he “cannot obtain a new trial based on 

prosecutorial misconduct” on appeal).

As for whether the court abused its discretion in overruling the objections, 

we start from the well-settled premise “that the manner in which, and the extent to 

which, cross-examination of a defendant may be pursued is largely a matter of the 

trial court’s discretion, and its ruling will be disturbed only upon a clear showing 

that such discretion has been abused.” State v. Broten, 176 N.W.2d 827, 828 

(Iowa 1970). The discretion afforded to the court in making these calls recognizes 

that “the relationship between counsel and the witness, the volume, tone of voice, 

inflection, emphasis and gestures all affect the thrust of the question.” 5 Handbook 

of Fed. Evid. § 611:20 (9th ed.) (Nov. 2022 update). Thus, “what appears 

argumentative to some courts is perfectly proper cross-examination in others.” Id. 

We find no abuse of the court’s discretion here.

In the State’s case-in-chief, the medical examiner testified that Rossibeth 

suffered two gunshot wounds to the head. So when Lopez testified in his defense, 
11

he claimed “the two bullets went off” when Rossibeth tried to “grab the gun with 

her hand” and “attack [him] with the other.” He continued: “[I]t was very fast. She 

was right in front of me like this. She grabbed it like this and she—it went boom 

like this. She moved her head to the side and then the other bullet went off . . . .” 

The prosecutor tried to clarify this story on cross-examination, asking Lopez, “did 

you shoot Rossibeth by accident or in self-defense?” Lopez answered, “I don’t 

know exactly how to explain it because she attacked me,” though he agreed that 

once he took the gun away from her, she was unarmed. In response, the

prosecutor pressed Lopez on whether two bullets could “come out of that gun with 

one trigger squeeze” and whether it was possible for both to have accidentally 

struck Rossibeth, leading to the challenged exchange. 

By offering himself as a witness, Lopez subjected “himself to the same rules 

on impeachment and credibility as other witnesses.” State v. Harrington, 178 

N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa 1970). And cross-examination “should always be allowed 

relative to the details of an event or transaction.” State v. Damme, 522 

N.W.2d 321, 325 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). The context of the omitted questions 

shows the prosecutor was properly seeking answers about the mechanics of what 

Lopez claimed happened to Rossibeth. Cf. People v. Chapman, 133 

P.3d 534, 563 (Cal. 2006) (“An argumentative question is a speech to the jury 

masquerading as a question. The questioner is not seeking to elicit relevant 

testimony. Often it is apparent that the questioner does not even expect an 

answer. The question may, indeed, be unanswerable.”); accord State v. 

Thornburgh, 220 N.W.2d 579, 585 (Iowa 1974) (“An argumentative question is one 

that ‘merely invokes the witness’[s] assent to the questioner’s inferences from or 
12

interpretations of the facts proved or assumed.’” (citation omitted)). We 

accordingly reject this assignment of error. 

B. Motion for New Trial

Lopez next claims the court abused its discretion in denying his motion for 

a new trial as contrary to the weight of the evidence. We review this claim for an 

abuse of discretion. See State v. Stendrup, 983 N.W.2d 231, 246 (Iowa 2022). 

“Our review is not to determine whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the 

evidence but only to determine whether the district court abused its considerable 

discretion in denying the motion.” Id. “A district court should grant a motion for a 

new trial only in exceptional circumstances.” Id. (citation omitted). Those 

circumstances are not present here. 

For the first-degree murder count involving Rossibeth, Lopez claims “the 

greater weight of the evidence presented supports [his] version of events that the 

shooting occurred as an accident following a struggle with Rosie.” He focuses on 

Mariah’s concession that she initially lied to the police, and her inability to 

remember some details about the shooting, in arguing that his testimony “was far 

more credible.” But “it is not our role to judge the credibility of witnesses on our 

appellate review” of whether a verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. 

State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 216 (Iowa 2013). Instead, “our task is 

simply to determine whether the district court manifestly abused its discretion.” 

Stendrup, 983 N.W.2d at 246. It did not, considering the direct and circumstantial 

evidence weighed by the district court, including the autopsy findings that 

Rossibeth was shot twice in the head, with the “second shot fired at ‘point blank’ 

range into her head,” as the State points out in its appellate brief.
13

As for the two counts involving the children, Lopez argues “the State failed 

to produce any evidence placing Lopez anywhere close to the basement.” He 

contends,

[a]t all times relevant to the shooting of the children, Lopez was either 

outside of the house or on the first floor. Mariah never testified that 

she saw Lopez go to the basement. Lopez testified that he did not 

go into the basement. And, the investigators found no forensic 

evidence to show that Lopez was in the basement at the time of their 

deaths.

The district court rejected this argument, agreeing with the State that the 

greater weight of the evidence showed “that the children were still alive in the

basement when Mariah . . . left the home following Rossibeth’s shooting, and they, 

the children, were killed sometime before the police arrived or . . . shortly 

thereafter.” Because Lopez “was the only living person in the home in that time 

frame,” the court found the greater weight of the “evidence clearly established that 

the defendant, after shooting Rossibeth, went into the basement and shot the two 

children.” Most compelling, according to the court, was “the similarity in the injuries 

to each of the three victims with two gunshot wounds to the head.” We again find 

no manifest abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Lopez’s motion for new trial 

on these counts. See id.

III. Conclusion

We affirm Lopez’s three convictions for first-degree murder, finding no 

abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings on Lopez’s objections to questions 

as argumentative or in its denial of his motion for a new trial on weight-of-theevidence grounds.

AFFIRMED.