STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWARD ALGENERIO CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-748 / 06-1771
Filed November 15, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EDWARD ALGENERIO CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, J. Hobart Darbyshire,
Judge.
The defendant appeals from the judgement and sentence entered upon
his conviction of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver contending
there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. AFFIRMED.
Kyle D. Williamson of Williamson Law Office and Eric C. Syverud,
Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant County
Attorney, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Edward Algenerio Campbell appeals from the judgement and sentence
entered upon his conviction of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver
in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(3) (2005) following a bench trial.
He contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We review
his claim for errors at law. State v. Rohm, 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000).
We will uphold a finding of guilt if substantial evidence supports the verdict. Id.
“Substantial evidence is evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could find a
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
In order to be convicted, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that Campbell possessed crack cocaine, he knew the
substance he possessed was crack cocaine, and he delivered the crack cocaine.
Campbell was observed by the tactical operations unit of the Davenport Police
Department hanging around in an area known for drugs and prostitution. He was
openly counting money and exhibiting behavior typical of a drug dealer. After
approximately thirty minutes, another man signaled to Campbell and brought
over two women, Latasha Cook and Robin Cunningham. This behavior is typical
of one “brokering” a drug transaction.
Campbell and the women appeared
nervous as they looked up and down the street. Campbell then removed white
objects from his mouth and handed one to Cook in exchange for what appeared
to be money. When officers approached Campbell, he appeared to swallow. No
crack cocaine was found on Campbell or Cook, but Cunningham possessed
crack cocaine. We conclude there is substantial evidence for the trial court to
find Campbell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
3
Campbell cites several instances of allegedly contradictory testimony
offered at trial. The credibility of witnesses is for the factfinder to decide except
for those rare circumstances where the testimony is absurd, impossible, or selfcontradictory. State v. Kostman, 585 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1998). None of the
examples he cites fall under this category. Accordingly, we 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.
