State of Iowa v. Jeremy James Greening
19-1822
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 30, 2021Background
- In April 2019 Dustin Dalton borrowed a skid loader for a Bondurant job; a security-camera image showed a red Chevrolet Tahoe towing the loader and trailer away at 8:22 a.m. on April 27.
- Dalton posted the image; a Des Moines neighbor (Sherry Clark) testified Jeremy Greening came to her house between 9:00 and 10:00 a.m. in a red vehicle and asked to leave the trailer and skid loader by her garage, then returned about an hour later in the same vehicle to take them.
- Dalton reported the theft to police; the skid loader and trailer were never recovered.
- Greening was charged with first-degree theft (with a later habitual-offender enhancement), tried in September 2019 on a jury instruction presenting two alternative theories: (A) taking possession with intent to deprive, or (B) exercising control while knowing the property was stolen. The jury returned a general guilty verdict.
- On appeal Greening argued insufficient evidence supported either alternative; he also raised, for the first time in a reply brief, constitutional challenges to Iowa Code § 814.28, but the court struck the reply brief and did not consider those arguments.
- Applying the substantial-evidence standard in light most favorable to the State, the court concluded circumstantial evidence supported both alternatives and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Greening's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for the "taking" alternative (did Greening take the loader with intent to deprive?) | Timestamped theft photo + Greening seen 30–90 minutes later in same red Tahoe with the loader supports inference he took it | No direct evidence ties Greening to the initial taking from the jobsite | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence allowed a jury to infer Greening took the loader |
| Sufficiency of evidence for the "exercised control/knowledge" alternative (did Greening knowingly possess stolen property?) | Unexplained possession of recently stolen property (short interval, same vehicle, false explanation about getting another truck) permits inference of knowledge | No proof Greening knew the loader was stolen | Affirmed — short time interval and unexplained possession support inference of knowledge |
| Consideration of constitutional challenge to § 814.28 raised in reply brief | State moved to strike new issues raised first in reply; courts generally do not consider issues first raised in reply briefs | Raised separation-of-powers, equal protection, due process challenges in reply brief | Motion to strike granted; the court declined to consider the constitutional arguments |
| Effect/applicability of Iowa Code § 814.28 (general-verdict rule) | § 814.28 allows affirmance if any alternate theory submitted to jury is supported by substantial evidence | Argued § 814.28 unconstitutional (but only in reply brief and struck) | Court applied § 814.28 and required only one alternative to be supported; conviction sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2019) (standard of review for sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges)
- State v. Selestian, 515 N.W.2d 356 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (inference from unexplained possession of recently stolen property)
- State v. Brightman, 110 N.W.2d 315 (Iowa 1961) (temporal gap does not preclude inference of knowledge based on possession)
- Villa Magana v. State, 908 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa 2018) (generally do not consider issues raised first in a reply brief)
- Polk County v. Davis, 525 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (granting motion to strike reply brief when new issues were raised)
- State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2020) (determining applicability of 2019 code amendments based on judgment date)