State v. Ashmore
| Decision Date | 29 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1878.,11–1878. |
| Citation | 826 N.W.2d 515 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Jeffrey Alan ASHMORE, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Crystal S. Cronk, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for two counts of invasion of privacy. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Mark E. Weinhardt, Holly M. Logan, and William B. Ortman of Weinhard & Logan, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, and Rick Lynch, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by VAITHESWARAN, P.J., and POTTERFIELD and BOWER, JJ.
Jeffrey Ashmore appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of invasion of privacy, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.21 (2011). Ashmore argues the district court: (1) erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal, (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial, (3) failed to adequately explain the reasons for the sentence it imposed, and (4) erred in sentencing him under section 692A.106(4).
Upon our review we find substantial evidence supports the jury's determination in regard to the challenged elements of the crime, and the district court properly denied Ashmore's motion for judgment of acquittal. We further find the greater weight of the evidence supports the jury's determination of guilt in this case, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Ashmore's motion for new trial. However, we find the court did not give sufficient reasons for Ashmore's sentence, and therefore, his sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. On remand, we also direct the court to remove the reference in regard to section 692A.106(4) from Ashmore's sentence. Accordingly, we affirm Ashmore's judgment, vacate his sentence, and remand this case for resentencing.
Thirty-three year old Shannon Woods lives with her husband, Ryan, and their two young children in Bloomfield, Iowa. Shannon is an attorney, and Ryan is a middle school principal. Shannon and Ryan both work “full-time-plus jobs” and “always have a pretty strict routine.” In addition, Shannon is a long-distance runner with a “set pattern” for her training. The children have an 8:00 bedtime, and then usually between 8:00 and 8:30, Shannon takes a shower.
On the evening of March 4, 2011,1 Shannon was home alone with the children. Ryan was at a school function and did not return home until 11:00 p.m. Shannon put the children to bed, took a shower “at 8:00 or 8:30,” and then went to bed. As Shannon got into bed, she heard “what [she] thought was a ladder on the outside of [the] bedroom wall.” When Ryan came home, Shannon told him she “had heard something outside, and that it sounded like a ladder scraping along the side of the house.” Ryan told Shannon, “Well, that's just crazy.” Trying to “defend [herself] a little bit,” Shannon reminded Ryan that when she was a child, her house was burglarized by a person who climbed a ladder and entered through the chimney.
Four days later, on March 8, Shannon's “exact same routine” was altered because she was presenting a speech at an out-of-town seminar. By the time Shannon arrived home “between 8:00 and 8:30,” the children were already in bed. Shannon decided to make a cup of hot chocolate and sit down “on the living room couch for a minute in the dark.” As Shannon was relaxing and looking out the back window, she saw a man “carrying a ladder [walk] right through the backyard.” The man was “tall and skinny” and was “dressed fully in black, had black pants, a black coat, a black stocking hat.” The man came “from the east,” the direction of their next door neighbor, the defendant Jeffrey Ashmore. 2 Because the man “was walking a straight shot from the front of [Ashmore's] house,” Shannon wondered if the person was “stealing a ladder from Mr. Ashmore.” Shannon lost sight of the man after he walked past their threeseason porch.
Ryan entered the living room, and Shannon told him what she had just seen. Ryan agreed that was “kind of odd.” As Ryan opened up a sliding glass door and stepped out onto the porch, Shannon heard the man fall off the ladder and run into the woods behind the house. Ryan did not see the man fall off the ladder, but saw him “about 10 feet” from their home, heading with the ladder toward the woods. Ryan was “90–plus percent sure” the man was Ashmore. Ryan then heard “what sounded like somebody falling, because all of the sudden there was a quite a noise back in the timber.”
Shannon and Ryan called the police, and officers searched the area with spotlights for approximately fifteen minutes without success before concluding they had “scared ‘em off.” After the police left, Shannon told Ryan, Ryan went outside with a flashlight to take a closer look around the house. Ryan returned and said, “There are multiple ladder prints beside your bathroom window and beside our bedroom window.” Shannon and Ryan called the police again.
The police returned and examined the ladder prints. Police Chief Shawn Armstrong asked Shannon if she had any idea who might be looking through her windows. Shannon responded, “The only person that comes to mind would be my next-door neighbor [Ashmore].” Shannon further explained that from her few interactions with Ashmore, he “creeps [her] out a little bit” and “made the hair on the back on [her] neck stand up.” Shannon also thought it was “odd” that several times Ashmore stopped as he drove by the Woodses' driveway and commented about “how many days it had been since [Shannon] had run or since he had seen [Shannon] run.”
Chief Armstrong and Officer Jason Cole decided to install a motion sensor camera behind the Woodses' home. The camera had a night vision setting and after movement was detected, it would automatically take five photographs at a series of four-second intervals. After that, the camera would enter a designated “sleep” mode for ten minutes before waking again to capture any movement.
A few weeks after the camera was installed, Shannon called the police department and asked the officers to check the contents of the camera. The footage revealed five still photographs, taken at approximately 7:45 p.m. on March 21, depicting a man carrying a large ladder and walking from the direction of Ashmore's home to the Woodses' home and arriving near Shannon and Ryan's bedroom window in the last picture. The man also appeared to be carrying a camera.
Ashmore agreed to come to the police station for questioning. Chief Armstrong conducted the video-taped interview, in which Ashmore admitted to carrying a ladder and a camera onto the Woodses' property, and stated he had done so “probably about four or five” times. Ashmore later stated, “I mean, I didn't even hardly get to see anything” and stated that he “didn't take any pictures.” Ashmore denied masturbating and lamented his marital problems, but agreed he had “screwed up.” Ashmore stated he thought Shannon was “a beautiful lady” and said he had stopped walking in the evenings because “it was just too tempting.” Ashmore told Chief Armstrong, “To be honest, Shawn, I was surprised that it took you guys so long .”
Ashmore accompanied Chief Armstrong and Officer Cole to his home where he cooperated in a search. The officers seized a ladder and a camera from Ashmore's home. The camera had black tape covering the flash, but the officers determined it contained no inappropriate pictures.
The State filed a trial information charging Ashmore with two counts of invasion of privacy—nudity, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.21, for the incidents that took place on March 4 and March 21. Following a two-day trial, the jury found Ashmore guilty as charged. The district court sentenced Ashmore to one year in jail on each count, with all but thirty days suspended, and ordered the two sentences to be served consecutively. Ashmore now appeals.
Ashmore asserts the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove he committed the crime of invasion of privacy. Our review of claims of insufficient evidence to support a conviction is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. P. 6.907; State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 171 (Iowa 2011). A jury's findings of guilt are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. State v. Enderle, 745 N.W.2d 438, 443 (Iowa 2007). Substantial evidence exists to support a verdict when the record reveals evidence that could convince a rational trier of fact a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d at 171. In making this determination, we consider all of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the verdict and make all reasonable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the evidence. Id. “However, it is the State's ‘burden to prove every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged, and the evidence presented must raise a fair inference of guilt and do more than create speculation, suspicion, or conjecture.’ “ Id. (quoting State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004)).
To convict Ashmore of two counts of invasion of privacy in this case, the State was required to prove:
1. On or about March [4 and 21], 2011, Jeffrey Ashmore knowingly and intentionally viewed another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying his sexual desire [and committed invasion of privacy if all of the following apply]:
a. The other person did not have knowledge about and did not consent or is unable to consent to being viewed, photographed, or filmed.
b. The other person was in a state of full or...
To continue reading
Request your trial