STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AARON BUTLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-224 / 07-0665
Filed April 9, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AARON BUTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Duane E.
Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Appeal from conviction of and sentence for felon in possession of a
firearm. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney
General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Drew Bockenstedt, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Aaron Butler appeals from his conviction of and sentence for felon in
possession of a firearm. He contends the court erred in overruling his motion for
judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove the handgun met the
definition of a “firearm.” We affirm.
At trial the State presented evidence the defendant possessed a loaded,
semi-automatic Taurus .380 handgun.
The gun was admitted as an exhibit.
After the State’s case, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict and
judgment of acquittal:
[W]ith respect to the firearm itself, I know there was some evidence
with respect to the general nature of semiautomatic weapons;
however, I don’t believe there was any evidence put forth to show
that this particular firearm was designed to discharge a shot or shell
or projectile or bullet by the force of a chemical explosive such as
gunpowder. There may have been some talk in general terms
about a semi-automatic weapon, but there was no evidence with
respect to this particular weapon, the one that has been marked as
an exhibit.
The court denied the motion, noting there was sufficient evidence about “the
firearm issue” to submit it to the jury.
Our review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We
review the record to determine if substantial evidence supports the conviction.
State v. Bash, 670 N.W.2d 135, 137 (Iowa 2003). Evidence is substantial if it
could convince a rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. State v. Torres, 495 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 1993). “When reviewing a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, including legitimate inferences and presumptions
3
which may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the evidence in the record.”
State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208, 213 (Iowa 2006).
The marshalling instruction for felon in possession of a weapon defined
firearm: “a ‘firearm’ is any instrument which will or is designed to discharge a
shot or shell or projectile or bullet by the force of a chemical explosive such as
gunpowder.” On appeal, Butler contends the State had to prove how the gun
fired and there was no evidence it was “designed to discharge a shot or shell or
projectile or bullet by the force of a chemical explosive such as gunpowder.”
“Jurors do not abandon their common knowledge about the affairs of the
world when they enter the jury box.” State v. Manning, 224 N.W.2d 232, 236
(Iowa 1974).
Jurors can “rely on their common knowledge to support a
conviction.” State v. Stevens, 719 N.W.2d 547, 552 (Iowa 2006); see also State
v. Post, 286 N.W.2d 195, 203 (Iowa 1979) (noting history, common sense, and
experience are factors to be considered in determining whether there is a rational
connection between basic facts that the prosecution has proved and the ultimate
fact presumed).
We conclude there was sufficient evidence for the court to submit the
question to the jury and substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict. The trial
court did not err in overruling the motion for judgment of acquittal. Because
substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we are bound by it on appeal
and affirm the verdict. See State v. Weaver, 608 N.W.2d 797, 803 (Iowa 2000).
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
