Opinion ID: 1253121
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Evidence Sufficient to Support Defendant's Conviction?

Text: This court reviews challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law. See State v. Chang, 587 N.W.2d 459, 462 (Iowa 1998). We will uphold a verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. See id. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. See Cox, 500 N.W.2d at 24. Substantial evidence means such evidence as could convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We consider all the evidence, not just the evidence supporting the defendant's guilt. See State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 377 (Iowa 1998). The sole argument made by the defendant to support his claim that the evidence did not support his conviction was that the trial court, as the finder of fact, allegedly expressed doubt as to Turner's guilt. At sentencing the court stated, There is some question in my mind, frankly, about your actual knowledge of the presence of this gun in the microwave and how it got there. ... (Emphasis added.) Turner claims this statement indicates the judge had significant doubt as to the knowledge element of the crime. See Iowa Code § 724.26 (defining crime as knowingly [having] dominion and control ... [of] a firearm). We disagree that the court's statement at Turner's sentencing indicated a doubt that Turner knowingly possessed the gun. In its ruling finding the defendant guilty of possession of a firearm by a felon, the court stated, Statements made by defendant [and] admitted by the [c]ourt indicate knowledge by the [d]efendant of the existence of the firearm inside the residence.  (Emphasis added.) Although the court may have believed that Turner did not know how the gun got in the microwave, the judge apparently had no doubt that Turner knew the gun was somewhere in the residence. Based on our consideration of the court's statement in the larger context of the entire trial court proceedings, we do not think the judge expressed doubt as to the defendant's guilt. Therefore, we reject the defendant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on this basis.