Opinion ID: 2219373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the testimony is reasonable and consistent with other evidence, you believe.

Text: 2. Whether a witness has made inconsistent statements. 3. The witness's appearance, conduct, age, intelligence, memory and knowledge of the facts. 4. The witness's interest in the trial, their motive, candor, bias and prejudice. We have stated [t]he very function of the jury is to sort out the evidence presented and place credibility where it belongs. State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Iowa 1984). Capper's counsel vigorously cross-examined both children. K.V. and N.S. gave inconsistent statements, stated they did not remember, and made statements in conflict with one another. In addition, counsel used and introduced prior sworn statements to impeach their testimony. Neither child reported improper touching to a parent after the alleged incidents. The trial court properly allowed the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence. See State v. Frommelt, 159 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Iowa 1968); McVay v. Carpe, 238 Iowa 1131, 1138, 29 N.W.2d 582, 585 (1947). We find there is sufficient evidence to support the crimes charged against Capper. Based upon his admissions and confessions, the corroborative evidence, and all other evidence, a rational jury could find Capper guilty of the criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not err in denying his motion for a directed verdict.