State v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 20 May 2022
• Docket Number: 20-0280
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jordan McKim CRAWFORD, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

974 N.W.2d 510

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Jordan McKim CRAWFORD, Appellant.

No. 20-0280

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted March 31, 2022

Filed May 20, 2022

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, and Allison Adams (argued), law student, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Oxley, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

OXLEY, Justice.

Jordan Crawford participated in a three-week crime spree that involved using a torch to cut into an ATM, robbing a bank, driving to Oregon with the proceeds to buy marijuana, and then returning to Iowa to sell the drugs. For his involvement, Crawford was convicted of first-degree robbery and ongoing criminal conduct, and sentenced to twenty-five years on each. After the court of appeals affirmed his convictions, we granted further review to determine whether this crime spree satisfies the requirements for ongoing criminal conduct.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings.

We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution in considering Crawford's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. See State v. Taylor , 689 N.W.2d 116, 131 (Iowa 2004).

Most of the State's evidence at trial came from the testimony of Ethan Spray, who participated in the underlying crimes with Crawford and provided his testimony in exchange for a plea deal. According to Spray, on May 30, 2018, he and his associates, Ross Thornton and Jordan Crawford, cut into an ATM using an acetylene torch. It is unclear whether they were successful in recovering cash from the ATM, but Crawford was not charged related to that incident even though Spray identified Crawford as the one operating the torch. In any event, the trio's alleged crime spree did not stop with the ATM in Brighton. On June 1, Spray robbed the Pilot Grove Savings Bank in Packwood, Iowa at gunpoint. He left the bank with approximately $18,000 in cash and jumped into a getaway car driven by Thornton.

Earlier that morning, Thornton drove his pickup truck to Packwood and parked it a few miles outside of town. The pickup truck driven by Thornton was registered to Crawford. Phone records obtained in the ensuing investigation revealed that during the robbery, Thornton communicated with Crawford, who was waiting at the Ottumwa residence he shared with Thornton. The roommates exchanged five phone calls during a twenty-two-minute interval surrounding the commission of the robbery.

Spray testified that Crawford was supposed to provide him with a face mask or a hat¹ and gloves to wear during the robbery. Crawford supplied the face mask as directed; however, he forgot the gloves, forcing Spray to cover the distinctive tattoos on his hands with duct tape instead. After the robbery, the group removed and burned paper bands that were holding the stolen money together, along with the two-dollar bills they thought could be traced back to the bank. When asked if Crawford helped, Spray testified, "Barely. He was in and out of the room." Spray identified Thornton as the leader of the group who kept the money from the robbery. Spray testified the three men had an understanding as to how the money was going to be used, but he never stated what the understanding was.

Within days of the robbery, the trio continued their crime spree by taking a trip to the West Coast to purchase marijuana they intended to sell back in Iowa. Investigators were able to later follow their movements cross-country through Spray's cell phone records. Facebook messages sent from Crawford's account show his attempts to purchase marijuana in Oregon. The messages also show Crawford soliciting numerous Facebook contacts upon returning to Iowa, advertising that he "just got back from Oregon and got that fire green for the low". The Facebook messages took place right after the robbery and continued until June 15.

When the trio arrived home from their trip out west, law enforcement was busy investigating the bank robbery. The investigation ultimately led them back to Spray based on the identification of his vehicle, physical descriptions of him from witnesses, and surveillance footage matching his appearance. Law enforcement executed search warrants in August for the homes of Spray, Thornton, and Crawford, and for Crawford's vehicle. They found $50,000–$55,000 of cash at Thornton's home. Officers found a handwritten note in Spray's home that read, "Im Freaking out Feds are onto us!! Do you know how to look for wire taps and bugs?" The officers found no incriminating evidence at Crawford's home but did find $470 in cash, two phones, and a "personal use" amount of marijuana in Crawford's vehicle. The $470 was never linked back to the robbery. Crawford's employer testified that he had recently paid Crawford over $1,200, and Crawford argued that the cash in his car was from his paycheck.

Ultimately, Crawford was charged with aiding and abetting the Packwood bank robbery in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1(1) and 711.2, and section 703.1 (2019), a class "B" felony. Although Crawford was not charged with the attempted ATM theft or distribution of marijuana, the prosecutor used those alleged crimes, along with the Packwood robbery, to file an amended trial information adding a charge of ongoing criminal conduct in violation of Iowa Code sections 706A.2(1)(d ) and 706A.1(5), also a class "B" felony.

The jury found Crawford guilty on both counts. Crawford appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals rejected Crawford's arguments and affirmed his conviction for both robbery in the first degree and ongoing criminal conduct. We granted Crawford's application for further review.

II. Standard of Review.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims for correction of errors at law. State v. Kelso-Christy , 911 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Iowa 2018). When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider "whether, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the record." Id. (quoting State v. Meyers , 799 N.W.2d 132, 138 (Iowa 2011) ). There is substantial evidence if the evidence "would convince a rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (quoting Meyers , 799 N.W.2d at 138 ). We draw all legitimate inferences in support of the verdict. Taylor , 689 N.W.2d at 131. However, "[e]vidence which merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is insufficient." State v. Casady , 491 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 1992) (en banc). The evidence must at least raise a fair inference of guilt as to each essential element of the crime. State v. LaPointe , 418 N.W.2d 49, 51 (Iowa 1988).

III. Error Preservation.

At the close of the State's case, Crawford made a motion for acquittal and renewed the motion before the case was submitted to the jury. As the State points out, Crawford's motion for acquittal did not specifically identify which elements of the first-degree robbery charge the evidence failed to prove, and he never mentioned a lack of evidence about his knowledge that a weapon would be used. Applying our precedent, the court of appeals agreed with the State that Crawford failed to preserve error on his challenge to the first-degree robbery conviction.

But after the court of appeals decision, we revisited our precedent concerning what is needed to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a trial. See State v. Crawford , 972 N.W.2d 189, 195–202 (Iowa 2022). In State v. Crawford , we held, "A defendant's trial and the imposition of sentence following a guilty verdict are sufficient to preserve error with respect to any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raised on direct appeal." Id. at 202. Therefore, we may review Crawford's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for both charges in this case, despite any deficiencies in his motion for acquittal.

IV. Analysis.

We consider two issues on appeal: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Crawford of robbery under an aiding and abetting theory and (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Crawford of committing ongoing criminal conduct.

A. Aiding and Abetting. Sufficient evidence to support a conviction under a theory of aiding and abetting exists if there is "substantial evidence the accused assented to or lent countenance and approval to the criminal act by either actively participating or encouraging it prior to or at the time of its commission." State v. Hearn , 797 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Iowa 2011) (quoting State v. Ramirez , 616 N.W.2d 587, 591–92 (Iowa 2000) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by State v. Reeves , 636 N.W.2d 22, 25–26 (Iowa 2001) ). Knowledge of the crime is essential; "however, neither knowledge nor presence at the scene of the crime is sufficient to prove aiding and abetting." State v. Barnes , 204 N.W.2d 827, 828 (Iowa 1972). "Aiding and abetting may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct and circumstantial evidence are equally probative." State v. Huser , 894 N.W.2d 472, 491 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted).

The jury was instructed on both first- and second-degree robbery, and it found Crawford guilty of robbery in the first degree. Crawford challenges the evidence to support a conviction for any robbery. We start with first-degree robbery.

1. First-degree robbery. A person who "purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious injury, or is armed with a dangerous weapon" during a robbery commits first-degree robbery; all other robberies are second-degree robbery. Iowa Code §§ 711.2 –.3. The jury instructions required the State to prove the following elements of first-degree robbery:

1. On or about the 1st day of June, 2018, the defendant had the specific intent to commit a theft, either as principal

...