State of Iowa v. Olen James Brown

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0817
Filed July 23, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

OLEN JAMES BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk Daily, Judge.

Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing

bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.

Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell & Goedken, P.C., Ottumwa, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and

Bower, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
2

BOWER, Senior Judge.

Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing

bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury, challenging

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claiming he was

deprived of a fair and impartial jury. We affirm, finding substantial evidence

supports his verdicts and his juror challenge was not preserved.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On November 12, 2023, Brown went to the Ottumwa police station to report

his brother missing. He approached Sergeant Devin Yeager as he exited his

marked police vehicle in the station’s parking lot. Yeager explained Brown’s

brother was safe and then told Brown he had a warrant and Yeager was detaining

him. Yeager had seen Brown’s name on the list of people with current arrest

warrants and on a police station display of active arrest warrants with photos.

Yeager radioed Brown’s information through the dispatch center to verify the

warrant.

Brown told Yeager he did not have a warrant and started to walk away.

Yeager told him to stop as he was not free to leave. When Brown backed away,

Yeager grabbed Brown’s arm, which Brown pulled away, then grabbed Brown’s

shirt or jacket. Brown responded by punching Yeager just under his left eye.

Yeager backed away, drew his taser, and told Brown he was under arrest. Brown

was not compliant with commands to get on the ground, so Yeager tased him.

A surveillance camera captured video of the altercation. Brown can be seen

approaching Yeager’s vehicle and speaking with him about something. Brown

starts to walk away, with Yeager following. Brown continues to back away with
3

Yeager in pursuit. Yeager can be seen trying to grab Brown’s shirt, Brown hitting

Yeager’s arm and swinging at his face.

As a result of Brown’s punch, Yeager’s left eye swelled, and he “had zero

vision out of [that] eye.” Photos taken shortly after the altercation show Yeager’s

swollen eye with significant bruising along the bottom and a red mark on his cheek

below the bruising.

After Brown’s arrest, Yeager discovered Brown was correct: the warrant for

his arrest had been recalled a few days earlier. According to Yeager, after the

incident he received letters sent by Brown apologizing for punching him in the face.

At the conclusion of the evidence but before submission to the jury, Brown

moved for a directed verdict dismissing all charges; the court denied the motion,

finding a jury question existed on each charge. The jury found Brown guilty of

assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury and interference with official acts

resulting in bodily injury. The jury found him not guilty of an additional charge of

possession of marijuana. Brown appeals.

II. Analysis

First, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the district

court should have dismissed his case. Brown also claims a juror should have been

removed during voir dire, depriving him of a fair and impartial jury.

A. Sufficiency of Evidence. Brown challenges the sufficiency of

evidence to support his convictions. 1 We review challenges to the sufficiency of

1 Although trial counsel asked the court to dismiss the charges—and appellate

counsel follows suit calling it a motion to dismiss—the trial court termed it a motion
for directed verdict, which we treat it as a motion for judgment of acquittal, rather
than the procedurally distinct motion to dismiss. See Iowa Rs. Crim.
4

evidence for correction of errors at law. State v. Cook, 996 N.W.2d 703, 708

(Iowa 2023). We uphold the jury’s verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence

when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id.

Brown argues he was not under arrest at the time, there was no valid arrest

warrant against him, he “defended himself from the miscarriage of justice,” and he

“did not cause a bodily injury or mental illness to Sergeant Yeager.” These broad

statements are not further explained or addressed beyond terming the proof

“severely lacking.”

With the assault charge, State had to prove Brown committed an assault on

Yeager, Yeager was a peace officer, and Brown’s action caused bodily injury to

Yeager. Yeager testified Brown struck him, corroborated by the surveillance video;

Brown makes no argument this did not constitute an assault. It was not contested

Yeager was a peace officer at the time. Further, Yeager testified his eye hurt and

provided photos of his swollen, bruised eye following the assault—this falls within

the definition of bodily injury provided to the jury: “physical pain, illness or any

impairment of physical condition.” Substantial evidence supports the conviction of

Brown for assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury.

For interference with official acts, the State had to prove Brown knew

Yeager was a peace officer, knew Yeager was performing within the scope of his

duties, resisted or obstructed those duties, and inflicted a bodily injury on Yeager.

Brown approached Yeager—who was in uniform—as he exited his marked police

P. 2.11(8), 2.19(7); State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 249 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001).
Regardless, after a trial and verdict we can review “any challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence raised on direct appeal.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202
(Iowa 2022).
5

vehicle, proving he knew Yeager was a peace officer. And Yeager was acting

within the scope of his duties to check on Brown’s warrant status. When Yeager

told him he was being detained on a warrant, Brown said “no” and started walking

away while Yeager radioed dispatch. While Brown knew his warrant status had

cleared, he resisted compliance with the warrant check, including backing away

and striking Yeager when Yeager tried to prevent his departure. The strike

resulted in bodily injury to Yeager by causing pain and resulting in a bruised and

swollen eye. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict on the interference

with official acts resulting in bodily injury.

B. Fair and Impartial Jury. Next, Brown argues a juror should have

been struck for cause during voir dire. The source of his claim was the following

exchange between the prospective juror and his counsel:

JUROR: I kind of believe you’re guilty and you have to prove your
innocence.
COUNSEL: That’s not true. You know that, don’t you? I don’t have
to prove Mr. Brown innocent. The State has to prove him guilty.
JUROR: I do know that’s true.
COUNSEL: But you think it’s the other way?
JUROR: Uh-huh.

Counsel did not ask the court to strike for cause at that time, and later “pass[ed]

the jury for cause.”

Brown asserts error was preserved on this issue by filing his notice of

appeal. This is not sufficient. Our appellate rules specifically provide “Filing a

notice of appeal does not preserve an issue for appeal.” Iowa R. App.

P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1). The statement must address “how the issue was

preserved . . . with references to the places in the record where the issue was

raised and decided in the district court.” Id. “[I]ssues must ordinarily be both raised
6

and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v.

Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

Brown never requested the juror in question be struck before this appeal—

not for cause or through peremptory strikes. Even Brown admits, “At no point did

any party, including the court, dismiss or strike the . . . juror.” And he provides no

reason why no request to strike was made. “[O]ur regular error preservation

rules . . . require parties to alert the district court ‘to an issue at a time when

corrective action can be taken.’” State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 524

(Iowa 2011) (citation omitted). “Even issues implicating constitutional rights must

be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for

appeal.” Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 309, 322 (Iowa 2013). Defense counsel

must challenge a juror for cause which must be denied to preserve error on appeal

under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5) and (11). Brown failed to do so,

and error was not preserved for our appellate review.

Finding substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts and Brown did not

preserve error on his juror challenge, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.