Opinion ID: 1253126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Domestic Abuse by a Preponderance of the Evidence

Text: Because this is a civil proceeding, Timothy needs to prove the occurrence of domestic abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The two undisputed facts to support Timothy's allegation of assault are that Bill physically restrained Timothy against his will, and Timothy suffered some minor injuries. In order to prove domestic abuse, sufficient facts of assault must be alleged. The definition of assault is useful to this discussion. A person commits an assault when, without justification, the person does ... Any act which is intended to cause pain or injury to, or which is intended to result in physical contact which will be insulting or offensive to another, coupled with the apparent ability to execute the act. Iowa Code § 708.1(1). It is clear that by Bill putting Timothy in a bear hug, he committed an assault on Timothy. Such conduct was committed in Timothy's home and was unwelcome. The greater weight of the testimony shows that Bill restrained Timothy because he wanted to get Stephen out of the house, not because he was afraid Timothy was a threat. Timothy also testified that Angie physically pushed him downan act that would be offensive to Timothy. Given these factual findings, and placing considerable weight on the district court's credibility determinations, there is sufficient evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an assault occurred. The key question then is Paula's involvement in the assault to make her culpable. We have said a person who aids and abets an assault is guilty whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense. Id. § 703.1. To convict one of a crime on the theory of aiding and abetting, the State must produce substantial evidence that the accused assented to or lent countenance and approval to the criminal act either by active participation in it or by some manner encouraging it prior to or at the time of its commission. It is true the State must prove the accused knew of the crime at or before its commission. But such proof need not beand frequently cannot beestablished by direct proof. The proof may be either direct or circumstantial. Although such knowledge is essential, neither knowledge nor proximity to the scene isstanding aloneenough to prove aiding and abetting. Butas the State points outsuch factors in combination with circumstantial evidence such as presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed may be enough from which to infer a defendant's participation in the crime. State v. Lewis, 514 N.W.2d 63, 66 (Iowa 1994) (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Lott, 255 N.W.2d 105, 107 (Iowa 1977); State v. Miles, 346 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa 1984)). Here, Paula admitted that she brought Bill and Angie along as insurance to be able to take Stephen with her. She knew Timothy would oppose such an action should she attempt to take Stephen away by herself. We are persuaded that she called Bill into the house to restrain Timothy when she discovered Timothy would not let her take Stephen. She stood by while Angie shoved Timothy and while Bill struggled with Timothy. She never tried to stop Bill or Angie from touching Timothy. There was also undisputed testimony that this is not the first time Paula has used Bill to assault Timothy. Paula called on Bill to rough up Timothy in 1994, which resulted in Bill ripping off Timothy's shirt and throwing him down on the ground. When the incident at issue here concluded, Paula left with Bill and Angie and returned to their home, taking Stephen with her. No one told police that Timothy had done anything to instigate the physical contact, that his hostility forced them to restrain him and get Stephen outside, or that anyone feared Timothy. Bill and Angie were combative to police questions, and neither they nor Paula would give police a meaningful statement of events. Although Paula attempts to downplay the event as an inconsequential incident, Timothy was clearly assaulted. We are persuaded that Paula lent countenance to this assault. See State v. Kneedy, 232 Iowa 21, 28, 3 N.W.2d 611, 615 (1942) (Participation in criminal intent may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed.). As such, we agree that the issue of domestic abuse was proven by a preponderance of the evidence.