Opinion ID: 1300396
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Supporting the Conviction.

Text: We turn to the question whether evidence in this record supports each element of robbery as defined in section 711.1. Whether defendant's assaultive conduct assisted his escape or was post-escape activity would ordinarily be an issue of fact for the jury. We conclude that issue was for the jury in this case. Reasonable jurors could have found that defendant was in the process of escaping when he was confronted by the security personnel, then attempted to break free. The court of appeals majority reversed defendant's conviction on the stated reason that the defendant was not immediately and uninterruptedly pursued and he had stopped his escape. Substantial evidence supports the jurors' contrary findings on those disputed questions of fact. The investigator gave the following pertinent testimony in describing her initial surveillance of defendant: Q. From where the jewelry was taken, how far do you suppose, then, is it to the front door of the store? A. I'd say 25 to 30 feet. Q. Okay. And did you follow him? A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Where did he go once outside the store? A. He went directlyhe went left and directly to the down escalator. Q. Okay. And did you see him once he went down the escalator? A. Yes. I followed him and I was probably 25 to 30 feet behind him. Q. Okay. At any time did the defendant turn around and look at you? A. Yes, through the whole incident he did. Q. More than once? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Was it a constant looking back or, I mean, was it obvious that he was looking back and making eye contact with you? A. Yes. Q. So it was evident to you that he knew you were behind him? A. Yes. She then testified she passed by defendant at a distance of only five to ten feet before running for additional help. Given the proximity in time (minutes) and place (an adjacent store in the same shopping mall), we cannot fault as a matter of law the jury's conclusion that defendant was still in the process of escaping when he was stopped, questioned, and then apprehended after a scuffle. Issues of fact, including questions of witness credibility, are of course matters reserved for jury determination. State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Iowa 1984). We vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the trial court. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.