State of Iowa v. Shawn Edward Boger

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1863
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Shawn Edward Boger,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County,
The Honorable Carl J. Petersen, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

William Monroe, Burlington, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.
Opinion by Greer, P.J.

1
GREER, Presiding Judge.

Shawn Boger appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
third-degree burglary conviction. On our review, we find sufficient evidence
to support the conviction and affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Late in the evening on August 10, 2023, someone broke into the Gold
Eagle Cooperative in Titonka. The following morning, employees arrived to
find the offices in disarray. Someone had forced entry into two different
buildings on the property, using a green tool to pry open the doors, which left
behind green paint transfer. Once inside, someone had rummaged through
drawers and cabinets, scattering their contents on the floor. Gold Eagle did
not keep cash on site, and nothing had been taken.

Gold Eagle reported the break-in to police and pulled the surveillance
footage. The footage showed a white pickup truck driving onto the property
around 11:30 p.m. Shortly after that, the footage captured two people walking
toward one of the buildings on the property. One person wore a black hoodie,
a face covering, and black pants with a white stripe on the side from the knee
to the ankle. The other person wore a black-and-gray hoodie with a large logo
on the front, a face covering, gloves, jeans, and boots. This person was
carrying a long pry bar.

Law enforcement noted that the truck had several identifying features,
such as chrome running boards, rims, and mirrors; a green or yellow tow
strap; a sticker on the bottom left portion of the rear window; and damage to
the rear bumper. Officers began looking for a truck matching that
description. Eventually, an investigator located a white Chevrolet Silverado
with all the same identifying features parked outside a home in Mason City.

2
Both the home and the truck belonged to Andrea Arne. Arne was dating and
living with Boger.

In early September, law enforcement executed a search warrant on
Arne’s home. During the search, officers found a black-and-gray hoodie with
a large Harley-Davidson logo on the front. Officers determined that another
man, Jeremy Soesbe, also lived in the home. In Soesbe’s bedroom, officers
found a pry bar, a pair of black pants with a white stripe on the side from the
knee to the ankle, and gloves.

The day after the search, a neighbor came forward with two green pry
bars he had found near the property line between his and Arne’s properties
in mid-August. When police collected the pry bars, they noted that some of
the green paint had been scraped off.

Boger and Soesbe were both charged with third-degree burglary.
Soesbe pled guilty. But, Boger pled not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial
which began on October 8, 2024.

By the time of trial, Arne and Boger had gotten married.1 Arne
testified that she owned the truck and allowed Boger and Soesbe to drive it,
with Boger using the truck most of the time. Arne testified that the black
pants with the white stripe were Soesbe’s. She could not recall whether the
black-and-gray sweatshirt was Boger’s, but she testified that Boger owned a
lot of clothing and a motorcycle from Harley-Davidson.

Boger testified in his own defense, admitting that he had committed
“multiple burglaries” and thefts in the past. He insisted he had always pled

1
Arne took Boger’s last name after the marriage, but we refer to her as Arne in this
opinion to avoid confusion.

3
guilty in the past but did not do so in this case because he was not involved.
To explain how Arne’s truck was at the site, Boger claimed that on the night
of the burglary he let Soesbe use the truck. Further, Boger confirmed that
Arne’s truck was the truck in the Gold Eagle surveillance footage. He also
identified Soesbe as the individual in the black pants with the white stripe.
While he did not identify the other individual, he said he knew the person
but was not going to disclose the name. Boger testified he was at a casino on
the night of the burglary.

Soesbe was called to testify as a rebuttal witness. Soesbe testified that
he pled guilty to the burglary because he was, in fact, guilty. He identified
himself as the person in the black hoodie and black pants with white stripe,
and Boger as the person with the long pry bar, black-and-gray hoodie, and
jeans. In detail, Soesbe testified that Boger had instructed him on how to
wedge a smaller pry bar into the door so Boger could use the bigger pry bar
to pop the door open. Finally, Soesbe confirmed that they broke into two
buildings at Gold Eagle but did not take anything.

The jury convicted Boger of third-degree burglary in violation of Iowa
Code section 713.6A(1) (2023). Boger appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction
of errors at law. State v. Dalton, 674 N.W.2d 111, 116 (Iowa 2004). “In
conducting that review, we are highly deferential to the jury’s verdict.” State
v. Brown, ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2026 WL 545942, at *3 (Iowa 2026)
(citation omitted). “The jury’s verdict binds this court if the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).

4
III. Analysis.

On appeal, Boger argues that his burglary conviction must be reversed
because there is insufficient evidence of his specific intent to commit a theft.
In Boger’s view, considering the evidence presented by Soesbe, at the most,
he “was merely showing [Soesbe] how to break into a building,” and the State
should have asked Soesbe if they intended to steal anything as Soesbe said
“[n]othing was taken.” We disagree with the assertion that the evidence was
insufficient.

“Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier
of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation
omitted). “We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and
reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).

“Where, as here, the jury was instructed without objection, the jury
instruction becomes law of the case for the purposes of reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Iowa Ct.
App. 2018). To convict Boger of third-degree burglary, the jury was required
to find:
1. On or about the 10th day of August 2023, [Boger] broke into or
entered the Gold Eagle Cooperative, Titonka, Iowa.

2. The Gold Eagle Cooperative, Titonka, Iowa, was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 19.

3. [Boger] did not have permission or authority to break into or
enter Gold Eagle Cooperative, Titonka, Iowa.

4. [Boger] did so with the specific intent to commit a theft.

5
Boger challenges only the final element: specific intent to commit a
theft. The jury was instructed on specific intent as follows:
“Specific intent” means not only being aware of doing an act and
doing it voluntarily, but in addition, doing it with a specific purpose in
mind.

Because determining the defendant’s specific intent requires you
to decide what he was thinking when an act was done, it is seldom capable
of direct proof. Therefore, you should consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding the act to determine the defendant’s specific
intent. You may, but are not required to, conclude a person intends the
natural results of his acts.

“[S]pecific intent is seldom capable of direct proof and is often shown by
circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn from that
evidence.” State v. Manning, 26 N.W.3d 385, 394 (Iowa 2025) (cleaned up).
“[A defendant] will generally not admit later to having the intention which
the crime requires . . . his thoughts must be gathered from his words (if any)
and actions in light of surrounding circumstances.” State v. Radeke, 444
N.W.2d 476, 478–79 (Iowa 1989) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Even without a direct admission of a theft, there is substantial evidence
of Boger’s specific intent to commit a theft in this case. Soesbe testified he
was guilty of third-degree burglary, which included a specific intent to
commit a theft, and that he was with Boger at the time. Boger and Soesbe
arrived at Gold Eagle well after the business had closed for the night wearing
face coverings and gloves. Boger was carrying a pry bar. He and Soesbe
forced entry into two buildings. Once inside, they rummaged through
drawers and cabinets. The fact that they did not ultimately locate anything
to steal does not negate their intent upon breaking into the buildings. All this
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to
convince a rational trier of fact that Boger had the specific intent to commit

6
a theft at Gold Eagle and that he was therefore guilty of third-degree burglary
beyond a reasonable doubt.

IV. Conclusion.

Because there was sufficient evidence to support Boger’s third-degree
burglary conviction, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

7