State of Iowa v. Wayne Michael Powell, 20-1308

At 5:51 a.m. on April 23, 2019, Officer Thomas observed a man walking near the One Eighty Zone campus carrying two Stihl weed eaters and wearing dark jeans, a dark hooded jacket (hood up), a light shirt, and bright orange work gloves.
Surveillance video from the facility captured a person in similar clothing forcing open an enclosed trailer and removing lawn equipment, including weed eaters and blowers; the intruder’s face was not clearly visible.
Officer Thomas found two orange Stihl weed eaters behind houses near where he had seen the man cut between properties; he later encountered Wayne Powell nearby wearing similar clothing and carrying bright orange gloves; Powell gave inconsistent accounts of where he had been.
Officer Hughes found the trailer door forced open, discovered matching lawn equipment inside and outside the fenced area, and located a hammer with scratches that matched marks on the trailer.
Powell was tried and convicted of third-degree burglary, third-degree theft (lesser included of the charged offense), and possession of burglar’s tools; the district court denied his motion for new trial based on weight of the evidence.
On appeal Powell challenged sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the perpetrator and argued the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence identifying the perpetrator	Observational match: officer saw a single man before 6:00 a.m. matching the clothing, gloves, gait, and carrying the distinctive weed eaters seen on surveillance; weed eaters were found near where the officer saw the man; Powell gave a false story	Surveillance did not show the burglar's face or distinctive features tying Powell to the video; identification is circumstantial and insufficient (citing Martinez)	Affirmed. The totality of surveillance, officer observations, recovered items, matching clothing/gloves, and Powell's inconsistent statements supplied substantial evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt
Motion for new trial based on weight of evidence	The State: evidence does not preponderate against the verdict; district court reasonably denied new trial	Powell: verdict is against the weight of the evidence and a new trial should be granted	Affirmed. Denial of new trial was not an abuse of discretion; the case is not extraordinary and the alternative verdict is not better supported by the evidence

State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2021) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
State v. Cox, 500 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa 1993) (defendant's false or inconsistent statement can be evidence of guilt)
State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 2016) (standard and narrow circumstances for granting a new trial based on weight of the evidence)