State of Iowa v. Todd Wayne Moore

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1940
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Todd Wayne Moore,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County,
The Honorable Mark D. Fisher, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Aaron Rogers, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Bower, S.J.

1
BOWER, Senior Judge.

Todd Moore appeals his conviction for domestic abuse assault with a
dangerous weapon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Upon our
review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On March 13, 2024, Destanne Campbell was driving home from work
when she saw a car in the ditch on her side of the road. Destanne saw a woman
(later identified as N.C.) in the ditch “waving her arms and screaming for
help” while a man (later identified as Moore) was “chasing her.” Moore was
chasing N.C. “[i]nto the field” and “[s]he was trying to get away from him.”
Destanne wanted to help N.C. but did not feel comfortable stopping by
herself, so she picked up her mother, Leslie, and returned to the same stretch
of the highway.

Upon their return a few minutes later, Destanne and Leslie saw a Jeep
“swerve at [N.C.]” and almost hit her. Destanne pulled over and told N.C.
to get in their car. N.C. obliged. Destanne and Leslie noticed N.C. was
scared, shaking, and crying. N.C. identified the man who chased her and
swerved at her as Moore. After dropping N.C. off to safety, Destanne and
Leslie called the police to report the incident. Destanne, Leslie, and N.C.
provided separate statements about the event.

At trial, Destanne and Leslie testified about what they saw and what
N.C. had told them. N.C., however, recasted her initial statements and

2
denied any involvement by Moore in the crime. After a brief trial the jury
came back with a guilty verdict.

II. Standard of Review

We review claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for
correction of errors at law. State v. Mathis, 971 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Iowa 2022).
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we are highly deferential to the
jury’s verdict,” and we are bound by it “if it is supported by substantial
evidence.” Id. Evidence is substantial if it can convince a rational fact finder
of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 516–17. To
determine if “the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence, we view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.” Id. at 517. This includes
reasonable inferences and presumptions deduced from the record. Id.

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Moore’s charge for domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon
arose from Destanne’s and Leslie’s reports, along with N.C.’s corroboration
of what took place during the incident. The jury was instructed the State
must prove the following elements of domestic abuse assault with a
dangerous weapon:
1. On or about the 13th day of March 2024, the defendant did an
act which was meant to place [N.C.] in fear of immediate physical contact
which would have been painful, injurious, insulting, or offensive to [N.C.],
by displaying in a threatening manner a dangerous weapon, to-wit: a motor
vehicle driven by Todd Wayne Moore toward [N.C.].

2. The defendant had the apparent ability to do the act.

3. At that time the defendant used or displayed a dangerous
weapon.

4. The act occurred between persons who have been family or
household members residing together within the past year.

3
See Iowa Code § 708.2A(2)(c) (2024) (defining domestic abuse assault with a
dangerous weapon). The jury determined the State proved all four elements
and found Moore guilty as charged.

On appeal, Moore contests the sufficiency of the evidence on the basis
both eyewitnesses lack credibility, arguing their previous knowledge 1 of
Moore gave them reason to falsely identify him, resulting in prejudice. Moore
further contends his defense of general denial was supported by the
testimony of the alleged victim of the domestic-abuse assault, noting N.C.
maintained at trial she did not recognize Moore’s vehicle swerving at her,
nobody chased her, and she was not waving her hands or screaming for help.
N.C. testified she only said these events took place because the police
questioning her would not take “no” for an answer.

However, “[t]he jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility,” not us.
State v. Lindaman, 30 N.W.3d 547, 555 (Iowa 2025) (noting the defendant had
“misperceive[d] our role” as the reviewing court by asking the court to
reweigh witness credibility). Indeed, appellate review is “not the trial redux.”
Mathis, 971 N.W.2d at 519. “In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, it is not the province of the court to resolve conflicts in the
evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the
plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the
jury.” Lindaman, 30 N.W.3d at 555 (cleaned up).

Here, the jury weighed these matters and was entitled to deem the
witnesses’ testimony credible or not. See State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761

1
On cross-examination, the defense established Leslie had previously heard
Moore’s name in connection to an incident occurring at Moore’s home. Destanne and
Leslie work at a nursing home near Moore’s home, and the incident involved other
nursing home staff.

4
(Iowa 2006). We refuse to second-guess the jury’s verdict on this basis.
Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, we affirm Moore’s
conviction for domestic abuse assault with a dangerous weapon.

AFFIRMED.

5