Opinion ID: 2757927
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Our threshold determination is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the adjudication. As stated earlier, we review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims in the juvenile context de novo. In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d at 49. Thus, we must first determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D.S. violated the harassment statute. See id. In order to address whether there is sufficient evidence to support the adjudication, we must first review Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(b), which provides: A person commits harassment when the person, purposefully and without legitimate purpose, has personal contact with another person, with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm that other person. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “personal contact” means an encounter in which two or more people are in visual or physical proximity to each other. “Personal contact” does not require a physical touching or oral communication, although it may include these types of contacts. Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(b) (2013). Next, we must look at the specific elements of the crime contained within the statute. The first element of the statute requires that a person purposefully and without legitimate purpose has personal contact with 8 another person. Id. We have previously defined the term “purposeful” within section 708.7(1)(b) as “[h]aving a purpose; intentional.” State v. Button, 622 N.W.2d 480, 484 (Iowa 2001) (quoting American Heritage Dictionary 1006 (2d ed. 1985)). While the term “purposefully” has been construed as a general-intent element in the context of our stalking statute, “the determination of whether a statute requires general or specific intent turns on the language of the act, read in the light of its manifest purpose and design.” State v. Neuzil, 589 N.W.2d 708, 711 (Iowa 1999) (classifying stalking as a general-intent crime and holding the purposeful requirement does not require proof of defendant’s subjective desires). General-intent crimes focus “not on the defendant’s mental state but on the result defendant’s purposeful acts cause in a reasonable person.” Id. In contrast, specific-intent crimes refer to the “defendant’s intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence.” State v. Buchanan, 549 N.W.2d 291, 294 (Iowa 1996) (quoting Eggman v. Scurr, 311 N.W.2d 77, 79 (Iowa 1981)). Specific-intent crimes designate “a special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime.” Neuzil, 589 N.W.2d at 711 (quoting Buchanan, 549 N.W.2d at 294). We have previously determined that “harassment is a specific intent crime.” State v. Evans (Evans II), 671 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2003). Thus, the harassment statute requires that at the time the defendant purposefully has personal contact 1 with another, he or she also has the “specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm” them. See State v. Evans (Evans 1It is undisputed that D.S. and T.B. had personal contact with one another on February 20. Both testified they engaged in oral communication with the other while in close, visual proximity to one another. 9 I), 672 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003); cf. State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810, 813 (Iowa 2000) (recognizing there must be a concurrence of the actus reus and the mens rea). To determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the adjudication, we rely on our definitions of the terms purposeful and personal contact, as well as our classification of harassment as a specific-intent crime. Therefore, the State needed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that D.S. purposefully had personal contact with T.B. with the specific intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence: threaten, intimidate, or alarm her. Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D.S. purposefully or intentionally put herself in personal contact with T.B. with the specific intent to threaten, intimidate or alarm T.B. Consequently, the juvenile court committed error in finding the State had proven D.S. committed the crime of harassment and in adjudicating D.S. delinquent. We have previously found purposeful personal contact where a defendant intentionally placed himself in contact with the victim, or where a defendant purposefully engaged in conduct leading to personal contact with the victim. See, e.g., Evans I, 672 N.W.2d at 330–31 (finding purposeful personal contact where defendant approached woman in store parking lot to examine her shoes); Evans II, 671 N.W.2d at 722–25 (finding purposeful personal contact where defendant went to the victim’s house uninvited on three separate occasions after the victim had repeatedly rebuffed defendant’s contact); State v. Reynolds, 670 N.W.2d 405, 410 (Iowa 2003) (finding purposeful personal contact where defendant followed victim in his SUV); Button, 622 N.W.2d at 484–85 (finding purposeful personal contact where, after being given repeated 10 opportunities to terminate an encounter with a police officer, defendant chose to act uncooperatively and belligerently, prolonging his detention wherein he ultimately made threatening statements to the officer). In Button we held the defendant made purposeful personal contact with a police officer, despite the fact that the charged incident occurred while the defendant was detained by law enforcement against his will. 622 N.W.2d at 484–85. The charges in Button arose from threatening statements made by the defendant after he was detained at a casino for being in a drunken state. Id. at 482. After police officers arrived at the scene, the defendant became “uncooperative to such an extent that he was placed under arrest.” Id. While in custody, the defendant made two threatening statements to the arresting officer, for which a jury found him guilty of harassment. Id. The defendant appealed, asserting that one “cannot commit purposeful contact when he is being held against his will.” Id. at 483. We rejected that argument, holding the defendant committed “purposeful acts when: (1) He chose to make the threats, turning the communication into harassment, and (2) He chose to be uncooperative leading to his detention and placing him in a position to make the threats.” Id. at 485. Specifically, we noted: Button had the choice to either answer [the officer’s] questions and be allowed to leave or continue to be argumentative and be forced to stay in [his] company. His fate was in his own hands. Button purposefully chose to be abusive and uncooperative, which ultimately led to his arrest and the detention where he made his threatening statements. Id. at 484. In Evans I, we found purposeful personal contact where the defendant approached the victim in a store parking lot and asked to 11 examine her shoes. 672 N.W.2d at 330–31. After the victim removed one of her shoes, the defendant attempted to take hold of her foot. Id. at 330. The victim pulled her foot away and quickly entered her vehicle and left the parking area. Id. The defendant later pulled up next to her car and smiled and waved. Id. Similarly, in Evans II, we found purposeful personal contact where the defendant repeatedly and intentionally initiated personal contact with the victim. 671 N.W.2d at 724–25. Defendant’s conduct in that case included: making repeated phone calls to the victim’s residence; approaching the victim at a drug store and a car wash; and on three separate occasions, appearing unannounced and uninvited at the victim’s residence. Id. at 722–23. Any purposeful personal contact involving D.S. in this case is clearly distinguishable from the defendants in Evans I and II and in Button. In those cases, the defendants intentionally placed themselves in contact with the victims, or purposefully engaged in conduct leading to personal contact with the victims. D.S., on the other hand, did not purposefully or intentionally initiate the personal contact with T.B., or purposefully engage in conduct that led to the personal contact. Rather, the record shows that both D.S. and T.B. exited the school bus after school as they had apparently done on every prior occasion without incident. The record shows that D.S. yelled “T bitch” to one of her other friends, which only incidentally spurred the encounter with T.B. The record revealed that the comment was not directed to T.B., and no evidence was presented that D.S. had any intention of initiating personal contact with T.B. D.S. testified that when she exited the bus and first yelled “T bitch,” she was not yelling at T.B. but rather her friend, T.F. The initial written statement provided by T.B. to Chief Orr noted that D.S. yelled, generally, “T bitch,” making no specific reference to T.B. 12 herself. The statement to Chief Orr further provided that after T.B. responded to D.S., D.S. replied, “I wasn’t talking to you . . . !” Thus, T.B.’s account to Chief Orr corroborates D.S.’s version of events, namely that D.S. “wasn’t talking to [T.B.],” and therefore did not act purposefully or intentionally in creating the encounter. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support this element of harassment. Moreover, as noted above, the harassment statute requires that at the time the defendant purposefully has personal contact with another, he or she also has the specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm that person. Put another way, in order to sustain a conviction for harassment under section 708.7(1)(b), the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt D.S. had formed the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm T.B. when she purposefully sought out the encounter. Accordingly, had the State established that D.S. purposefully or intentionally had personal contact with T.B., there is still no evidence in the record demonstrating that at the time D.S. initiated the contact with T.B. she possessed the requisite specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm T.B. Because we have concluded that D.S. did not act purposefully or intentionally in creating the encounter with T.B., or that she possessed the requisite specific intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm T.B. at the relevant time, we need not reach the issue addressed by the court of appeals regarding the proper definition of the word “intimidate” under section 708.7(1)(b). Further, because our decision on the sufficiency-ofthe-evidence argument provides D.S. the redress she seeks, we need not reach the constitutional issue raised in this case. See Hawkeye Land Co. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 847 N.W.2d 199, 210 (Iowa 2014) (“If [a] case may be resolved on statutory grounds, we need not reach [the] constitutional 13 argument.”); State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655, 663 (Iowa 2005) (recognizing our “duty to avoid constitutional questions not necessary to the resolution of an appeal”); Button, 622 N.W.2d at 485 (“Ordinarily we will not pass upon constitutional arguments if there are other grounds on which to resolve the case.”); State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Iowa 1989) (“We note at the outset that we need not reach the constitutional questions because [the defendant’s] sufficiency of the evidence argument . . . gives him the redress he seeks.”).