Opinion ID: 2053567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is There Substantial Evidence to Support Arne's Drug Convictions?

Text: A. Standard of review. A jury verdict is binding upon this court, and we must uphold the verdict unless the record lacks substantial evidence to support the charge. State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993). In considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, we review all the evidence to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 1994). Our review of the evidence is made in a light most favorable to the jury's verdict. See State v. Knox, 536 N.W.2d 735, 741 (Iowa 1995). Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in criminal cases is the recognition that the jury was free to reject certain evidence, and credit other evidence. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d at 211. The credibility of witnesses, in particular, is for the jury: [t]he jury is free to believe or disbelieve any testimony as it chooses. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d at 673. B. Need for corroboration. Arne claims the State failed to corroborate the testimony of McVicker with evidence such as fingerprints, video tape, or audio tape, or with recovery of the serialized money. Absent such corroboration, asserts Arne, the information supplied by McVicker does not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Arne relies on our decision in State v. Weir, 414 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 1987), to support his argument. In Weir, the defendant challenged a probable cause finding made in connection with the issuance of a search warrant. 414 N.W.2d at 330. The defendant claimed the reliability of an informant was not sufficiently established to provide support for the district court's probable cause finding. Id. at 330-32. We noted that courts apply a higher standard of proof when weighing the reliability of tipsters who act for money. Id. at 331. Therefore, we required factors other than the presumptive reliability of a citizen informant to support the district court's finding of reliability. Id. at 332. The analysis applied in Weir has no usefulness here where the credibility of the informant, McVicker, was an issue for thejury. This court has never applied a higher standard of proof when weighing the testimony of an informant witness in a criminal trial, and we decline to do so now. The witness's status as a paid informant is merely one fact that the jury may consider in deciding whether to believe the witness's testimony. C. Existence of substantial evidence. Arne also claims that no reasonable juror could believe McVicker because McVicker may have used drugs, he was paid for his services, the police did not adequately supervise the drug buys, and McVicker's testimony was contradicted by other witnesses. These arguments are insufficient to discredit McVicker's testimony as a matter of law. That the police may have more closely monitored the drug buys from Arne is no reason to completely disregard McVicker's eyewitness testimony. Officer Richman corroborated McVicker's testimony as to McVicker's dealings with the police. Although McVicker was paid for his services as an informant, he explained that he became an informant because he wanted to stop the pervasive drug usage he saw around him. McVicker denied any personal drug use, and attacked the credibility of the witness testifying to the contrary by forcing the witness to admit that McVicker had connected the witness to a burglary. The testimony of Asvig and Hill did not contradict McVicker's statements; these individuals simply could not corroborate McVicker's version of what had happened. That leaves the testimony of Arne, which was in direct contradiction to McVicker's testimony. The jury, however, was acting within its province in rejecting Arne's self-serving testimony that he did not sell drugs to McVicker. In summary, McVicker's credibility was an issue for the jury. Without his claim that McVicker's testimony must be disregarded, Arne's substantial-evidence challenge must fail. McVicker's testimony, if believed, was substantial evidence establishing each element of the crime of delivery of a controlled substance.