Opinion ID: 2134775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Terrorism. Iowa Code section 708.6 pertinently defines terrorism as follows:

Text: A person commits a class D felony when the person, with the intent to injure or provoke fear or anger in another, shoots... at [or] into ... a building ... occupied by another person ... and thereby places the occupants ... in reasonable apprehension of serious injury.... The evidence is clear that someone committed terrorism at the time and place in question. Lewis, however, contends the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he did it. The State relied on an aiding and abetting theory to establish the terrorism count against Lewis. Iowa Code section 703.1 makes an aider and abettor culpable for the crime of the principal. The aider and abettor is to be indicted, tried, and punished as a principal. See Iowa Code § 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. State v. Lott, 255 N.W.2d 105, 107 (Iowa 1977). 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. State v. Buttolph, 204 N.W.2d 824, 825 (Iowa 1972). Although such knowledge is essential, neither knowledge nor proximity to the scene isstanding aloneenough to prove aiding and abetting. State v. Vesey, 241 N.W.2d 888, 891 (Iowa 1976). 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. Miles, 346 N.W.2d 517, 520 (Iowa 1984). In addition, [g]uilt of a person charged with aiding and abetting must be determined upon the facts which show [the person's] part in the crime and does not depend upon another's degree of guilt. State v. Fetters, 202 N.W.2d 84, 90 (Iowa 1972). But whenas herespecific intent is an element of the crime charged, a person may be convicted on a theory of aiding and abetting if [the person] participates either with the requisite intent ... or with knowledge that the principal possesses the required intent. Lott, 255 N.W.2d at 109; see also 1 Iowa Criminal Jury Instructions 200.8 cmt. (1988). Lewis thinks the evidence was not sufficient to convict him as an aider and abettor. He argues that the evidenceviewed in the light most favorable to the Stateshows only that he (1) was present at the scene of the crime and shortly thereafter and (2) possibly had knowledge of the crime before it happened. In support of his contention Lewis argues that (1) no physical evidence was introduced linking Lewis to possession of any of the guns found at the scene, (2) no eyewitness testimony was offered, and (3) no confessions or admissions were obtained. It is true that fingerprint and gun powder tests on the weapons were inconclusive. It is also true that no one testified that they actually saw the individuals who did the shooting. And, as Lewis says, he did not admit any participation in the shooting. Nevertheless, we think there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that Lewis aided and abetted the drive-by shooting. Officer Henry S. Hawkins of the Davenport police department is a certified gang crime investigator and a recognized expert on criminal gang activity. He testified that on the night of the incident in question, he was aware that a drive-by shooting was imminent. He had learned this from his contacts in the community, including one of Lewis' co-defendants. According to Hawkins [i]t was understood throughout Davenport that something was going to happen. Evidence was also presented as to Lewis' membership in the Vice Lords, a rival gang of the Black Gangster Disciples. At the trial Lewis admitted, recanted, then reaffirmed that he was a member of the Vice Lords. Lewis was in a car with other Vice Lords members when the car was stopped by officers Marxen and Zellmar. Both officers testified to their close proximity to the crime scene and that they sighted the car within seconds of hearing the shots fired. Both stated they kept the car in sight at all times until it pulled over. Officer Marxen stated the car did not have time to stop and take on a passenger between the time the shots were fired and the time the officers first spotted the car. Both officers stated the car did not stop between the time they first sighted it and the time it pulled over. From all of this evidence the jury could reasonably infer that Lewis was present at the crime scene when the shooting took place. Three weaponstwo matching ballistics evidence at the Mason homewere found in the car. This, when coupled with (1) Lewis' admitted membership in the Vice Lords, (2) his presence in the car when it was stopped, (3) the presence of other Vice Lords members in the car, and (4) his attempt to elude the officers after the car was stopped, is substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion. That is, that Lewis accompanied his co-defendants to the Mason home with the intent to participate in a drive-by shooting. Once there, Lewis either (1) actively participated in the shooting or (2) encouraged it. While the facts might not individually support Lewis' guilt on the terrorism charge, in total they do.