STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. MONTRELL DESHONE ANDERSON , Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-323 / 07-1010
Filed May 14, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MONTRELL DESHONE ANDERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Jeffrey L.
Harris, District Associate Judge.
Montrell Anderson appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for
new trial. 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, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Joel Dalrymple, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Miller, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
A jury found Montrell Anderson guilty of third-degree sexual abuse. Iowa
Code § 709.4 (2003). On appeal, Anderson contends the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for new trial.
I.
Background Proceedings
After the jury entered its finding of guilt, Anderson filed a combined motion
in arrest of judgment and motion for new trial. He asserted “the verdict was
contrary to evidence” and he did not receive “a fair and impartial trial.”
At the sentencing hearing, the district court began by addressing the
combined motions.
The court asked the defense attorney who was then
representing Anderson to explain the grounds for the motion.
The attorney
stated:
[Anderson’s attorney] simply filed the document out of concern
for preserving any of Mr. Anderson’s rights on appeal, making sure
that any error was preserved on the motions for judgment of
acquittal. We don’t have any additional argument to make on the
document that was filed, and we would just ask the court to rule on
it before we proceed.
The court ruled on the motions as follows:
The jury returned a verdict in approximately 50 minutes. The court
finds that the state’s evidence presented substantial evidence on
each of the elements of the offense of Sexual Abuse in the ThirdDegree. The court specifically finds that the verdict was wholly
consistent with the evidence, and under Rule 2.24(2), Iowa Rules of
Criminal Procedure, that aspect of defense motion for a new trial is
denied.
In its written sentencing order, the district court reiterated that it had previously
denied “the defense motion for new trial and motion for arrest of judgment,
pursuant to Rule 2.24(2) and Rule 2.24(3), respectively.”
3
II. Nature of Review
In ruling on a motion that asserts the “verdict is contrary to law or
evidence” under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6), the court is to
“weigh the evidence and consider the credibility of witnesses.” State v. Ellis, 578
N.W.2d 655, 658 (Iowa 1998).
A verdict will be found “contrary to . . . the
evidence” under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(6) when it is “contrary to the weight
of the evidence.” Id. at 659.
Generally, “appellate 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 of the evidence.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203
(Iowa 2003).
However, where a defendant files a motion under Rule
2.24(2)(b)(6) and the district court summarily denies the motion, the Iowa
Supreme Court has stated “the district court must have found the jury’s guilty
verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Maxwell, 743
N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008). Under those circumstances, “we are allowed to
review the record to determine whether a proper basis exists to affirm the district
court’s denial of . . . [the] motion for new trial.” That review is for an abuse of
discretion. Id.
Here, the district court first ruled on Anderson’s motion in arrest of
judgment and decided that motion using a sufficiency–of–the–evidence
standard.1 The court next moved to Anderson’s new trial motion under Rule 2.24
1
The court may have equated the motion in arrest of judgment with a motion for
judgment of acquittal. If it did, this is not an issue on appeal. See State v. Oldfather,
4
(2)(b)(6) and stated the verdict “was wholly consistent with the evidence.”
Because the court did not explicitly weigh the evidence, we apply the standard
set forth in Maxwell.
III. Merits
On our review of the record, we are persuaded that the greater weight of
the evidence supports the jury’s verdict. Id. The charge arose from assertions
that nineteen or twenty-year-old Anderson performed sex acts with a twelve and
thirteen-year-old child. The child testified in detail about the acts.
Anderson correctly points out that the child’s testimony was not entirely
consistent with a police officer’s narration of the events as told to him by the
child. However, the inconsistencies related only to the location of the first sex act
and whether the child was hit during that act. There was no dispute that more
than one sex act occurred and that the acts continued for approximately eighteen
months. Based on this evidence, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Anderson’s motion for new trial based on Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6).
AFFIRMED.
306 N.W.2d 760, 762 (Iowa 1981) (stating motion in arrest of judgment may not be used
to challenge sufficiency of evidence); State v. Deets, 195 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Iowa 1972),
overruled on other grounds by State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa 1988)
(stating motion in arrest of judgment does not operate as acquittal). See also Iowa R.
Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a) (“a motion in arrest of judgment is an application by the defendant
that no judgment be rendered on a finding, plea, or verdict of guilty.”; (d)(“The effect of
an order arresting judgment on any ground other than a defect in a guilty plea
proceeding is to place the defendant in the same situation in which the defendant was
immediately before the indictment was found or the information filed.”).
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.
