IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-1340

Filed August 19, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHANE CRIPPEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Thomas P. Murphy, 

Judge.

Shane Crippen appeals the denial of his motion for new trial. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by May, P.J., Greer, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2020).
2

MAY, Presiding Judge.

Shane Crippen was convicted of first-degree theft, first-degree eluding, and 

operating while intoxicated. On appeal, Crippen claims the district court should 

have granted a new trial on the theft charge. We affirm.

On March 28, 2019, Cody Pasa was at a convenience store filling up his 

truck. He went inside to pay for the fuel. Then Pasa looked outside and saw a 

man in a black hooded sweatshirt jump into his truck. Pasa ran out of the store 

and tried to stop the man. But the man drove off with Pasa’s truck. Pasa notified 

police. Pasa described the man as a “white guy, skinny-ish” with “facial chin hair.” 

The next day, police located the truck. Police initiated a traffic stop, but the 

truck sped off. A high-speed chase ensued. Eventually, the truck got stuck in a 

ditch. The driver, later identified as Crippen, took off on foot into the woods. He 

was ultimately found and taken into custody. 

A jury found Crippen guilty of theft, eluding, and operating while intoxicated. 

Crippen filed a motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment. The district court 

denied the motions and sentenced Crippen to prison. Crippen appeals.

On appeal, Crippen contends the district court should have granted a new 

trial on the theft charge. He claims the State failed to prove he knew the truck was 

stolen.

Under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6), the district court “may 

grant a new trial” if “the verdict is contrary to law or evidence.” In State v. Ellis, our 

supreme court held this rule requires the trial court to apply a “weight-of-theevidence” standard—and not the “sufficiency-of-the-evidence” standard that 
3

governs motions for judgment of acquittal.1 578 N.W.2d 655, 658–59 (Iowa 1998). 

The court explained:

On a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court is required to 

approach the evidence from a standpoint most favorable to the 

government, and to assume the truth of the evidence offered by the 

prosecution. If on this basis there is substantial evidence justifying 

an inference of guilt, the motion for acquittal must be denied.

On a motion for new trial, however, the power of the court is 

much broader. It may weigh the evidence and consider the credibility 

of witnesses. 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, the verdict may be set aside and a new 

trial granted.

Id. (quoting 3 Charles A. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 553, at 245-48 

(2d ed.1982)).

“Trial courts have wide discretion in deciding motions for new trial.” Id. at

659. As the Ellis court cautioned, though, trial courts must “exercise this discretion 

carefully and sparingly.” Id. “[F]ailure to follow” this admonition “would lessen the 

role of the jury as the principal trier of the facts and would enable the trial court to 

disregard at will the jury’s verdict.” Id. So, as the court said in State v. Ary, a trial 

court should “grant a motion for a new trial only in exceptional circumstances.” 877 

N.W.2d 686, 705 (Iowa 2016).

 

1 The State points out there is “some ambiguity in the district court’s explanation of 

its ruling between the correct Ellis standard and the incorrect sufficiency-of-theevidence standard.” See Ellis, 578 N.W.2d at 658–59. But the State contends the 

court “properly applied the Ellis standard” and, even if the wrong standard was 

applied, Crippen has not preserved error. 

We are not sure the proper standard was applied here. But Crippen does 

not raise the issue. And we decline to make an argument for him. See State v. 

Lange, 831 N.W.2d 844, 847 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013) (“[W]e refuse to assume a 

partisan role and undertake a party’s research and advocacy when a party’s failure 

to follow the rules would require us to do so to reach the merits of the case.”); cf. 

State v. Phillips, No. 13-1402, 2014 WL 5243363, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 15, 

2014).
4

We have found no “exceptional circumstances” here. Pasa testified his 

truck was stolen from a gas station in Norwalk. And Crippen, who lived in Des 

Moines, admitted he was in Norwalk on the day of the theft. The next day, police 

located Pasa’s truck—and Crippen was driving it. Crippen fled from police. He

led them on a high-speed chase And when Crippen was finally caught, police

testified, he was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and had a goatee—like the 

man Pasa identified as the thief. It is true Crippen testified he did not even know 

the truck was stolen; instead, Crippen told the jury, he paid $20 to a Matt Martinez 

in exchange for the right to operate the vehicle “[f]or a few hours—couple hours.” 

But officers testified that Crippen had claimed to have borrowed the truck from 

someone that he met in prison—and Crippen could not give the person’s name.

From this record, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion 

by refusing to grant a new trial. So we affirm.

AFFIRMED.