IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1073

Filed January 10, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAYTON EARL MICHAEL ELLIOTT,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Tom Reidel, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals his criminal convictions, challenging the sufficiency of 

the evidence. AFFIRMED.

Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro Law, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

Dayton Elliott and Alejandro Flores were tried together for their involvement 

in the stabbing of Samantha Frye in the parking lot of a bar. Casting his role in the 

stabbing as a mere bystander, Elliott appeals the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting his convictions for assault and assault causing serious injury. We 

affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

As we recently detailed in Flores’s appeal from his convictions, the evidence 

from the joint trial disclosed these facts:

On January 23, 2021, Samantha Frye and her boyfriend 

decided to celebrate their birthdays together with a dinner at a local 

restaurant. When they were done eating, they called Samantha’s 

niece, Faith, who was out on a date herself. The couples met up at 

a nearby martini bar, before deciding to head to a new bar in town.

Soon after they arrived, Faith’s ex-boyfriend, Dayton Elliott, 

walked into the bar with a group of people that included Flores. No 

one in Samantha’s group knew Flores. But they did know Elliott 

because his relationship with Faith had ended badly. Faith felt 

threatened when Elliott walked in, as did Samantha. So they made 

plans to leave while trying to avoid Elliott—who was staring at them 

from across the bar and making hand gestures toward them.

As Samantha, Faith, and their dates tried to walk out of the 

bar, Elliott and Flores approached them. The video from cameras 

inside the bar, which does not have audio, seems to show the two 

groups exchanging words. An owner of the bar moved Elliott away 

from Samantha’s group as they left the bar. Flores tried to go after 

them, but Ashley, one of Samantha’s friends, held him back for a few 

seconds, ripping his sweatshirt in the process. Flores pushed her 

aside and quickly followed Samantha’s group outside. Elliott left the 

bar from a different exit and went around to the parking lot.

Video from cameras outside the bar shows Samantha’s group 

walking to her vehicle. Flores can be seen rushing out after them. 

Ashley was close behind, trying to separate him from the group. 

While she was next to Flores, Ashley testified that she heard a 

switchblade click open and saw the blade in his hand. She yelled 

out, “Knife,” but no one heard her. Faith’s date, however, saw the 

knife when he turned to look back at Flores. Ashley ran into the bar 
3

to get help, while another bystander tried to keep Flores away from 

Samantha’s group.

Meanwhile, Samantha’s group made it to her car. They all got 

in except for Samantha, who was standing outside the driver’s side 

door yelling for Ashley to come with them. As she was doing so, 

Flores and Elliott advanced toward her vehicle. Elliott split off from 

Flores and went around to the front of the car while Flores 

approached the passenger side. The video of what happened next is 

dark and difficult to see. One of the bar owners, who was standing 

outside, testified that it looked like Flores “put his upper body into the 

vehicle.” But Samantha’s boyfriend, who was in the front passenger 

seat, said that Flores never came into the vehicle. He was sure that 

all the windows and doors, except for Samantha’s, were closed.

According to Samantha, who was still outside the vehicle, 

Elliott was “banging on the vehicle and shouting profanities . . . 

demanding that Faith talk to him.” Samantha testified that she looked 

across the car at Elliott and heard him say, “Fucking stab her 

already.” Samantha got into the car and told her boyfriend what 

Elliott had said. Once she was inside, Samantha’s boyfriend saw 

Flores “on the front passenger side of the car in the front.” Samantha 

then tried to back out of the parking spot. She thought that her 

window was down while she was doing so. As the car was backing 

up, some bystanders outside the bar thought it ran over Flores’s leg. 

From her spot in the back, Faith remembers seeing Flores “getting 

up off the ground, propping himself up on the car.”

Another camera angle outside the bar shows that as the car 

pulled out of the parking spot, Flores ran toward the driver’s side in 

a crouched position. The car then speeds away. Inside the car, 

Samantha “felt a gush” of what she thought was warm water pouring 

down her back. She put her hand behind her left shoulder blade and 

saw it was blood. Samantha told her boyfriend that she’d been 

stabbed. While he put pressure on the wound, Samantha drove 

them straight to the hospital.

State v. Flores, No. 22-0426, 2023 WL 6293840, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. 

Sept. 27, 2023), further review denied (Nov. 20, 2023). After a second stabbing at 

the bar shortly after the first, and the arrival of police, both Elliott and Flores fled 

the scene. Id. at *2. Elliott was found hiding in a dumpster by the bar. Id. When 

Flores was apprehended nearby, a bloody knife was found on his person. Id. 

In counts nine and twelve of the amended joint trial information, Elliott was 

charged with attempted murder and willful injury for his part in the stabbing of 
4

Samantha. A jury convicted Elliott of the lesser-included offenses of assault and 

assault causing serious injury. The court merged those convictions and entered 

judgment and sentence for assault causing serious injury only. Elliott appeals, 

challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on both convictions.

1

II. Standard of Review

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of 

errors at law, giving high deference to the verdict. State v. Burns, 988 

N.W.2d 352, 370 (Iowa 2023). In doing so, we view “the evidence ‘in the light most 

favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn 

from the evidence.’” State v. Ortiz, 905 N.W.2d 174, 180 (Iowa 2017) (citation 

omitted).

III. Analysis

Elliott first claims the State offered insufficient evidence to prove that he 

aided and abetted in the stabbing of Samantha.2 Dialing in, he argues “[t]here is 

1 Because the district court merged the convictions and only entered judgment and 

sentence for assault causing serious injury, and because we conclude there is 

sufficient evidence to support that conviction, we need not separately address the 

challenge to the assault conviction. See State v. Gathercole, No. 14-0816, 2015 

WL 5278964, at *2 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2015).

2 The jury was instructed as follows on aiding and abetting:

All persons involved in the commission of a crime, whether 

they directly commit the crime or knowingly “aid and abet” its 

commission, shall be treated in the same way.

“Aid and abet” means to knowingly approve and agree to the 

commission of a crime, either by active participation in it or by 

knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or 

when it is committed. Conduct following the crime may be 

considered only as it may tend to prove the defendant’s earlier 

participation. Mere nearness to, or presence at, the scene of the 

crime, without more evidence, is not “aiding and abetting.” Likewise, 

mere knowledge of the crime is not enough to prove “aiding and 

abetting.”
5

insufficient evidence to show [he] knowingly encouraged the stabbing or assault 

by Mr. Flores” because the State “based its aiding and abetting theory on one 

alleged phrase heard by” Samantha: Elliott telling Flores to “fucking stab her 

already.” Elliott contends Samantha’s testimony about that statement was “so 

unbelievable that no rational factfinder could give any weight or credibility to the 

statement.” 

We dispose of this claim on the principle that it’s not the court’s role, when 

deciding a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of 

explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” State v. 

Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022). On direct examination, as the State 

points out in its appellate brief, Samantha unequivocally testified: “I heard Dayton 

Elliott. I saw Dayton Elliott. I looked at Dayton Elliott, and he said, ‘Fucking stab 

her already.’” She stuck to this testimony—even when separately pressed on 

cross-examination by each of the defendants’ attorneys—repeating multiple times 

that Elliott directed Flores to “fucking stab her already,” a directive that Flores 

followed. A police officer who went to the hospital immediately after the stabbing 

The guilt of the person who knowingly aids and abets the 

commission of a crime must be determined only on the facts which 

show the part he has in it, and does not depend upon the degree of 

another person’s guilty.

The crime charged requires a specific intent. Therefore, 

before you can find the defendant “aided and abetted” the 

commission of the crime, the State must prove the defendant either 

has such specific intent or “aided and abetted” with the knowledge 

the others who directly committed the crime had such specific intent. 

If the defendant did not have the specific intent, or knowledge the 

others had specific intent, he is not guilty.
6

testified the first thing Samantha told him was that “Elliott told a shorter Hispanic 

guy to stab her.” The officer noted Samantha repeated this as she recounted the 

events: “She kept telling me that Dayton Elliott told the shorter guy to stab her.” 

While there were some inconsistencies in the evidence, those were for the jury to 

sort out. See Flores, 2023 WL 6293840, at *4 (“There is conflicting evidence in 

the record, with each witness remembering the chaotic events a bit differently. But 

it’s the jury’s job, not ours, to sort out those conflicts.”).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State while affording 

the jury its right “to weigh the evidence and place credibility where it belongs,” State 

Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006) (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted), the jury could rationally conclude that Elliott was guilty as an aider 

and abettor “by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or 

when it [was] committed.”

For his second challenge, Elliott claims there was insufficient evidence to 

support his conviction “for assault causing serious injury because [he] did not injure 

anyone.” This is a purely legal challenge based on Elliott’s interpretation of the 

marshalling instruction. The jury was instructed that the State was required to 

prove the following elements for assault causing serious injury: (1) “Elliott did 

assault Samantha Frye by aiding and abetting in her being stabbed” and (2) his 

“acts caused serious injury to Samantha Frye.” 

Elliott argues the second element did not contain any aiding-and-abetting 

language, so the State was required to prove that he personally stabbed 

Samantha. We summarily agree with the State that Elliott’s “acts” as stated in 

element two encompass aiding and abetting Flores as contemplated by element 
7

one. The jury was separately instructed on aiding and abetting, and it was not 

provided with any limiting instruction stating that “knowingly advising or 

encouraging” the crime could not be an act that caused the injury as required by 

the second element for assault causing serious injury. In our view, the instructions 

allowed the jury to properly conclude Elliott was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

IV. Conclusion

We affirm, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the State’s 

aiding-and-abetting theory of criminal liability and the marshalling instruction for 

assault causing serious injury authorized the jury to reach a guilty verdict with 

aiding and abetting serving as the act causing serious injury. 

AFFIRMED.