From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 11, 2004
690 N.W.2d 697 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004)

Opinion

No. 4-404 / 03-1191.

August 11, 2004.

Appeal from the District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, District Associate Judge.

Paul Ingram appeals his conviction and sentence for third-degree burglary. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Martha Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and Michael Jacobsen, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.


The owner of a construction company discovered tools and other items missing from a construction site in Jasper County, Iowa. Several people were investigated, including Chris Schwab, Chris Hogan, and defendant Paul Ingram. Schwab and Hogan entered into plea agreements with the State. Ingram was charged with third-degree burglary and proceeded to trial. Iowa Code §§ 713.1, 713.6A (2001).

At trial, Schwab and Hogan testified that Ingram participated in the crime. A jury found him guilty and the district court imposed sentence after denying his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment.

On appeal, Ingram contends there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of Schwab and Hogan, who the State concedes were accomplices. His argument is premised on Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(3), which requires corroboration of accomplice testimony "by other evidence which shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. . . ." He points out that, under the rule, "the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(3).

Evidence claimed to be corroborative will be sufficient to create a jury question if that evidence corroborates some material aspect of the accomplices' testimony. State v. Brown, 397 N.W.2d 689, 694-95 (Iowa 1986). We agree with Ingram that the corroborative evidence is insufficient here.

Preliminarily, it is clear that each of the accomplice statements could not serve as corroboration for the other, even though both Schwab and Hogan placed Ingram squarely in the midst of the criminal conduct. State v. Douglas, 675 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Iowa 2004) (declining State's invitation to overrule precedent holding one accomplice may not corroborate testimony of another accomplice). Therefore, we turn to the non-accomplice evidence.

That evidence reveals the following. Ingram's grandmother lived within 100 yards of the construction site. Ingram lived in an apartment attached to the shop of his father. When law enforcement officers arrived to execute a search warrant on the shop, Ingram provided the keys and then watched what was going on from a distance. Although no stolen items were retrieved during the search, Ingram's father later turned over to authorities a chain saw missing from the construction site. The chief deputy sheriff testified he "got several stories on how the chain saw got where it was, "but he "didn't recall specifically what Paul [Ingram] said about the chain saw." No equipment was found in Ingram's possession.

About the time Chris Schwab was charged with burglary, Ingram approached Schwab's girlfriend, inquired where Schwab was, and asked, "well, is he hiding out?" He then asked to speak to Schwab. At trial, Schwab's girlfriend was asked if she knew why Ingram wanted to speak to Schwab. She testified, "I had a feeling it had to do with this."

At best, this evidence establishes Ingram's knowledge of the construction site, knowledge of a crime investigation, and belief that Schwab was involved in the crime. The evidence does not "corroborate a material aspect of the accomplice's testimony connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime charged." State v. Gillespie, 503 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Iowa Ct.App. 1993).

As there is insufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice testimony, we reverse and remand for judgment of acquittal. In light of our disposition, we find it unnecessary to address the remaining issues raised by Ingram.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.


Summaries of

State v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of Iowa
Aug 11, 2004
690 N.W.2d 697 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004)
Case details for

State v. Ingram

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAUL BARNETT INGRAM…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Aug 11, 2004

Citations

690 N.W.2d 697 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004)