Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Iowa v. Neal Cymone Johnson
Citation: Not availableDocket: 19-2039
Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; September 23, 2020; Iowa; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Neal Cymone Johnson was convicted of second-degree burglary under Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.5, following an incident in December 2017 where he attempted to enter the apartment of S.M., a neighbor, while making explicit sexual advances. S.M. resisted his entry, and after a brief struggle, Johnson fled to his girlfriend's apartment. Upon police arrival, Johnson acknowledged his actions were improper, leading to his arrest. On appeal, Johnson contended that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to establish he had the specific intent to commit sexual abuse, which is a necessary element for his burglary conviction. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of evidence claims, noting that jury verdicts are upheld unless lacking substantial evidence. The court emphasized that evidence is considered in favor of the State, allowing the jury to interpret the evidence and make reasonable inferences. For the jury to convict Johnson of second-degree burglary, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he unlawfully entered S.M.'s occupied apartment without permission. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, indicating that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence presented at trial. When jury instructions are given without objection, they establish "the law of the case" for evidence sufficiency review. In this instance, Johnson did not contest the jury instructions, which included specific definitions and interpretations relevant to his case. The jury was tasked with determining Johnson's specific intent to commit sexual abuse, defined as acting with a particular purpose beyond merely being aware of his actions. This intent is often inferred from the circumstances, as it is rarely directly provable. The jury received definitions for "sexual abuse" and "sex act," detailing the nature of prohibited actions. Johnson's conduct—entering S.M.'s apartment with the intent to engage in sexual abuse—was substantiated by multiple pieces of evidence: he was found nude below the waist, S.M. testified about his inappropriate comments, and witness accounts corroborated the timeline and context of the incident. Johnson's own admission to Officer Jeffries indicated an awareness of wrongdoing. Given the presented evidence and the jury's instructions, there was sufficient support for a rational jury to conclude that Johnson had the specific intent to commit sexual abuse. Consequently, the conviction for second-degree burglary was upheld, affirming the jury's findings.