State of Iowa v. Sean Michael Foley, 17-0043

Sean Foley, handcuffed, was escorted to a squad car by a uniformed police officer; video showed a physical struggle and the officer later stated Foley tried to bite her.
Foley was charged with assault on a person engaged in a certain occupation (serious misdemeanor) under Iowa law for attempting to bite the officer.
At the close of the State’s case, defense counsel moved for judgment of acquittal generally (stating only insufficient evidence), which the district court denied; a jury convicted Foley.
During deliberations the jury asked for clarification of the first element; the court provided a supplemental instruction over Foley’s general objection.
Foley appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intent to commit an assaultive act and (2) the court’s supplemental instruction misstated the law.
The appellate court reviewed preservation for both issues, preserved the sufficiency claim under an exception, found the instruction-objection unpreserved, and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Foley intended to bite/commit assault	State: testimony and video sufficiently show attempts and contact consistent with intent to bite	Foley: evidence did not prove intent or an attempt to bite	Held: Evidence—officer testimony, witness testimony, and video—was substantial; conviction affirmed
Supplemental jury instruction correctness/preservation	State: appellant failed to preserve objection; court properly answered jury	Foley: court’s answer to jury misstates law and was erroneous	Held: Error not preserved because objection was not sufficiently specific; issue not considered on appeal

State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 2013) (to preserve acquittal challenge defendant must identify specific element(s) alleged to be unsupported)
State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa 2005) (exception to preservation rule when grounds are obvious to court and counsel)
Olson v. Sumpter, 728 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2007) (objection to jury instructions must be sufficiently specific to preserve error)
Boham v. City of Sioux City, 567 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 1997) (same: objections must specify the matter objected to and grounds)
State v. Crone, 545 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1996) (general motion for acquittal does not preserve specific evidentiary defects)
State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; verdict stands if supported by substantial evidence)