STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NASSRENE HASHEMI TOROGHI, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-595 / 06-1537
Filed October 12, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NASSRENE HASHEMI TOROGHI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Thomas R. Hronek,
Judge.
Nassrene Hashemi Toroghi appeals her judgment and sentence for firstdegree harassment. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Douglass, Assistant Attorney
General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Daniel Rothman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Nassrene Hashemi Toroghi appeals her judgment and sentence for firstdegree harassment. Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(b), (2) (2005). She contends the
district court abused its discretion in (1) denying her motion for new trial and (2)
declining to grant her request for a deferred judgment.
I.
Hashemi Toroghi asserted the jury’s verdict was contrary to the law or the
evidence. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(6). In ruling on the motion, the district
court applied the correct standard, stating review involved “[a] consideration of
whether the greater amount of credible evidence supports one conclusion as
opposed to another.” The court also correctly noted that the discretion to grant a
new trial on this ground is to be invoked only in exceptional cases. See State v.
Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 658 (Iowa 1998).
The court then ruled as follows:
Admittedly, the verdict rests substantially upon the testimony
of the complainant, Tami R. Anderson, who testified the defendant,
while reaching into her pocket, stated she had a weapon and
threatened to kill Ms. Anderson and her children. The defendant
and her witnesses denied any such threats occurred.
In addition, evidence tended to establish that the witness
Anderson failed to make clear to investigating peace officers that
Anderson had more than one contact with the defendant over the
course of the interaction between the witness and the defendant.
Having had an opportunity, as did the jury, however, to hear
and observe the testimony of Anderson, the defendant and the
defendant’s witnesses, the court concludes a greater amount of
credible evidence supported entry of the verdict of guilty in this
matter and the testimony in support of the information was not so
lacking in credibility as to not support the guilty verdict.
Our review “is limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial
court, not of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight
3
of the evidence.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203 (Iowa 2003).
We
discern no abuse.
II.
The district court is to consider several statutorily enumerated factors
before entering a deferred judgment. Iowa Code § 907.5. The court did so,
stating:
A period of probation is clearly appropriate to monitor the
defendant’s behavior in the community. A deferral of judgment is
not, however, appropriate, in light of the defendant’s previous
conviction for theft, the serious nature of the offense and the
necessity to imprison Ms. Hashemi as well as others who are
similarly situated, and the community’s concern about offenses of
this type. The court and community can appreciate how people
don’t always get along. But, there is a big difference between
having a dispute with somebody else in the community and
threatening to kill them and their families. No civilized community
can permit this behavior. The court does conclude that a short
period of incarceration in the county jail is appropriate to impress
upon this defendant the seriousness of this behavior and to give
her an opportunity to see what it would be like to be incarcerated
for a substantial longer period of time. Hopefully this will foster her
rehabilitation.
We discern no abuse of discretion in this ruling. State v. Thomas, 547
N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996) (stating abuse may be found when sentencing
court “exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to
an extent clearly unreasonable.”).
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.
