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

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Capper was charged by trial information filed in March 1993 with two counts of sexual abuse of K.V., in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and 709.3(2) (1991), and one count of lascivious acts with a child, N.S., in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8. The essential elements of the charged crime of sexual abuse in the second degree are (a) the defendant performed a sex act with another person, and (b) the other person was under the age of twelve. Iowa Code §§ 709.1, 709.3(2). A sex act means sexual contact and includes contact between the genitalia of one person and the genitalia or anus of another, or contact between the finger or hand of one person and the genitalia or anus of another. Id. § 702.17. Skin-to-skin contact is not required. State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Iowa 1994). The sexual nature of the contact can be determined from the type of contact and the circumstances surrounding it. Id. The essential elements of the charged crime of lascivious acts with a child are (a) the defendant, with or without the child's consent, fondled or touched the pubes or genitals of the child, (b) the defendant did so with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either of them, (c) the defendant was then eighteen years of age or older, and (d) the child was then under the age of fourteen years. Iowa Code §§ 702.5, 709.8. At trial Capper requested a directed verdict and a judgment of acquittal after the State rested and also after all evidence had been offered. The court denied the request. The jury found Capper guilty on all charges. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a guilty verdict, our standard of review is well established. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 186 (Iowa 1994). We uphold the jury's verdicts unless the record lacks substantial evidence to support the charges. Id. Substantial evidence means evidence that could convince a rational jury that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
The key evidence at trial was the admissions and confessions of Capper and the testimony of the children, K.V. and N.S. Capper argues his confessions were not corroborated and that the children's testimony was inconsistent, self-contradictory, and lacking in detail. He urges the children's testimony was so lacking in credibility that it would not corroborate the confessions or support the guilty verdicts. See State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101, 103-04 (Iowa App.1993). The admissions and confessions arose from two interviews of Capper prior to the filing of the criminal charges against him. The first interview was conducted on January 25, 1993 by Deputy Sheriff John Griffin along a road near Capper's lake cabin. The interview lasted approximately fifteen minutes. Griffin testified he told Capper he wanted to visit with him concerning reports of sexual abuse of K.V. and N.S. Capper admitted he was with the girls at his cabin at the lake, he had touched the girls in the breast and vagina area, and he had shown them sexually explicit movies. He wrote and signed a statement: I did do some of this, no intercourse, played with them only. Touched there brests and vagina. The second interview was conducted on February 5 in the sheriff's office. Griffin asked Capper to come to the office to be interviewed by him and a child abuse investigator from the department of human services, Rebecca Burke. Capper voluntarily came to the office and was questioned by both Burke and Griffin. The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes. Griffin taped the interview and later transcribed the taped conversation. A copy of the transcript was provided to Capper prior to trial. Both Burke and Griffin testified as to admissions and confessions made by Capper and their observations of him during the interview. In addition the seven-page transcript was identified as an exhibit and admitted as evidence during the trial. We have recognized a distinction between a confession and an admission. State v. Davis, 212 Iowa 131, 134, 235 N.W. 759, 761 (1931). [A] confession comprises the whole criminal charge; whereas an admission relates only to a particular fact or circumstance covered thereby. Id. To constitute a confession the admissions or declarations must amount to an acknowledgement of the guilt of the offense charged. State v. Abrams, 131 Iowa 479, 484, 108 N.W. 1041, 1043 (1906). The trial court treated Capper's admissions as a confession and instructed the jury the confession of a defendant will not warrant a conviction unless accompanied with other proof that the defendant committed the offense. See Iowa R.Crim. P. 20(4). The existence of corroborative evidence is a question of law for the court; its sufficiency is ordinarily for the jury. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d at 187. Corroboration need not be strong nor need it go to the whole case so long as it confirms some material fact connecting the defendant with the crime. State v. White, 319 N.W.2d 213, 214 (Iowa 1982). From our review of the record, we find corroborative evidence was presented at trial. Corroboration of the testimony of a victim is not required. Iowa R.Crim. P. 20(3). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence we consider each count separately.
Capper admitted to Griffin and Burke that he touched K.V. on the clothing and under the clothing too when K.V. and other children spent the night at his lake cabin in the summer of 1992. He had shown movies of adults having sexual intercourse to K.V., N.S., and N.S.'s brother. Capper talked to K.V. about her being the dark-haired girl in the movie and he being the dark-haired man who were having sex. He rubbed K.V.'s vagina and, while under a blanket, K.V. rubbed her vagina on his penis while his clothing was off. He was thirty-three years old on February 22, 1992. In addition to Capper's admissions, K.V. testified she had stayed overnight at Capper's lake cabin. They watched porno movies, adults without their clothes on doing bad things. Capper touched her vagina with his hand and his private part, penis. He told her don't tell nobody. While watching the movie Capper would say this is me and you while pointing to the people on the screen. K.V.'s mother testified her daughter was seven years old on May 28, 1992. She remembered there was just one night in the summer of 1992 that K.V. stayed overnight with Capper and other children at his lake home. Capper's mother had babysat K.V. and her younger sister during the period from March 1990 until July of 1992. She first learned of the allegations against Capper from deputy Griffin on January 16, 1993.
Capper admitted to Griffin and Burke a second incident with K.V. in 1992. He was watching K.V. while her mother was at the store. K.V. was on top of him in her underwear while he didn't have anything on. He said she was awake for awhile and then went to sleep on top of him. He admitted to Griffin that while K.V. laid on top of him he had rubbed his penis against her. In addition to Capper's admissions, K.V. testified he rubbed her on the top and bottom of her private parts, her vagina, with his hands at her home while her mother was at the grocery store.
Capper admitted to Griffin and Burke that while N.S., her brother, and K.V. were watching movies at his lake cabin in the summer of 1992 he rubbed N.S.'s vagina. At the first interview he admitted to Griffin that he had touched N.S. in the breast and vagina area. N.S. was eleven years old in the summer of 1992. In addition to Capper's admissions, she testified Capper first started rubbing her stomach and then put his hand on her crotch, her vagina, while they were watching dirty movies. He told her not to tell anyone because he would have to go to jail. N.S. stated that she was wearing clothing at the time.
A jury is free to believe or disbelieve testimony as it chooses and to give weight to the evidence as in its judgment the evidence should receive. State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993). The jury is to decide the facts from the evidence. The court instructed the jury that it could consider:
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.