STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TOMMY LEE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-593 / 06-1498
Filed November 29, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
TOMMY LEE JOHNSON,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Don Nickerson,
Judge.
The State appeals from the order granting Tommy Johnson a new trial on
charges of first-degree burglary and willful injury causing serious bodily injury.
AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Robert Ewald and Mary Tabor,
Assistant Attorneys General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jim Ward,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellant, State.
Alexandra Nelissen of Nelissen & Juckette, P.C., Des Moines, for
appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
BAKER, J.
The State appeals from the district court’s order granting a new trial
following Tommy Johnson’s convictions for first-degree burglary and willful injury
resulting in serious injury. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Johnson was found guilty following a jury trial in July of 2005. At trial,
Teresa Seeley testified generally regarding Johnson’s alleged assault of Eddie
Gablurel in Seeley’s apartment.
While sentencing was continued awaiting
transcription of the trial testimony, Johnson requested and was granted funds for
the retention of a private investigator.
On April 18, 2006, Johnson filed an
amended motion for new trial asserting the discovery of new evidence. Johnson
would later present to the court an affidavit from Seeley stating that she gave
inaccurate testimony at trial based on pressure that she would otherwise lose her
children.
A hearing was subsequently held, at which Seeley testified. In pertinent
part, she testified that she consented to Johnson entering her apartment, that the
assault took place outside of her apartment, and that Gablurel may have been
the aggressor in the fight. Following that hearing, the court granted Johnson’s
motion for new trial. The State was granted discretionary review of this order by
our supreme court, and the case was transferred to this court.
Scope of Review.
We review a district court's ruling on a motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion. State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003). To establish an
abuse of discretion, the appellant must show the district court exercised its
3
discretion on grounds or for reasons untenable or clearly unreasonable. Id. The
district court has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for new trial. Id. We are
“slower to interfere with the grant of a new trial than with its denial.” Iowa R. App.
P. 6.14(6)(d).
Motion for New Trial.
A motion for new trial based on witness recantation is generally
considered a motion based on newly discovered evidence. State v. Compiano,
154 N.W.2d 845, 849 (Iowa 1967). Such motions are not favored in the law and
should be closely scrutinized and granted sparingly. Id. But, “[i]t is ‘important for
the orderly administration of criminal justice that findings on conflicting evidence
by trial courts on motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence
remain undisturbed except for most extraordinary circumstances . . . .’” Id. (citing
United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106, 111, 66 S. Ct. 464, 466, 90 L. Ed. 562,
565 (1946)).
“[O]ne convicted of a crime should not be granted a new trial unless
the trial court is satisfied that the testimony of a material witness
was false or mistaken, and unless a jury might reach a different
conclusion without such testimony.”
Compiano, 1454 N.W.2d at 850.
Credibility of witnesses is key in this determination. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d
at 207. Determinations of credibility are in most instances left for the trier of fact,
who is in a better position to evaluate witnesses. State v. Weaver, 608 N.W.2d
797, 804 (Iowa 2000).
We give great weight to a district court’s credibility
findings. State v. O'Shea, 634 N.W.2d 150, 156 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
4
In an early hearing on the motion for new trial, prior to the hearing at which
Seeley would eventually testify, the court stated:
The focus is whether or not [Seeley] told the truth at trial because,
once again, I was very nervous and—I was not impressed with her
testimony at trial because at one point she indicated that various
people had come in from outside of the house and then all of a
sudden she indicated that she had told Mr. Johnson that he couldn’t
come in.
And I thought her testimony at trial was contradictory . . . .
My concern is perjured testimony at trial, for whatever reason, so I
want to get to the bottom of that.
Thus, even prior to hearing Seeley’s testimony, the court indicated it had serious
doubts as to her credibility and the truthfulness of her trial testimony.
In its subsequent order granting the new trial, the court noted its
observation that during her trial testimony, Seeley “appeared confused and
reluctant” regarding her testimony that Johnson did not have permission to enter
her apartment. The court found her recanted testimony at the new trial hearing
to be more credible. The court also found significance in Seeley’s demeanor and
appearance while testifying at the new trial hearing. It specifically noted her
reluctance to make eye contact with the assistant county attorney, and it opined
that it felt “Seeley was relieved to have the full attention of the Court and
attempting to correct her trial testimony.”
After careful review, we cannot say the decision to grant a new trial was
“untenable” or “clearly unreasonable,” and thus we conclude the district court did
not abuse its discretion on this issue. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d at 202-203. This is
precisely the type of discretionary call our law places in the prerogative of the trial
court. We therefore affirm.
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.