Opinion ID: 1746896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Weaver contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We review a trial court's findings in a jury-waived case as we would a jury verdict: If the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we will affirm. State v. Torres, 495 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 1993). In this case, the elements of second-degree sexual abuse are the defendant's (1) commission of a sex act (2) against a child under twelve. Iowa Code §§ 709.1(3), 709.3(2). A sex act means sexual contact including 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. Iowa Code § 702.17. Weaver does not seriously challenge the State's proof that a sex act was committed. His focus is on the State's proof regarding the identity of the perpetrator. He strongly attacks the credibility of his wife, Ramona, the victim's mother. He contends her testimony is improbable, her actions absurd, and her claims about the [defendant's blood-stained] sweatpants impossible. The district court, however, had a different view of her credibility, making an express finding that [t]he court finds Ramona Weaver to be a very credible person. Determinations of credibility are in most instances left for the trier of fact, who is in a better position to evaluate it. State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91, 97 (Iowa 1986). We defer to the court's assessment of credibility here; there is substantial evidence to support the court's finding. In addition, the guilt of the defendant was strongly supported by the physical evidence on which the court relied. Blood stains were found on the defendant's underwear. Blood stains were found on the front crotch area and back leg area of the defendant's sweatpants. The blood stains on the sweatpants contained the victim's DNA. Swabs of the defendant's penis revealed blood stains, and according to the doctor's examination, this was not the defendant's blood. We conclude the verdict was supported by substantial evidence.