State of Iowa v. Avery Anthony Morris

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0346
Filed April 29, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Avery Anthony Morris,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County,
The Honorable Thomas G. Reidel, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit (until withdrawal) and
Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Sandy, J.

1
SANDY, Judge.

The facts of this case are straightforward but contested in their
characterization. An encounter that began with concern for two unattended
infants concluded with a physical altercation behind a gas station. After
officers informed Avery Morris he would be placed under arrest, he retained
his grip on the stroller containing his infants despite repeated commands to
release it. What followed was a brief but forceful struggle that resulted in
injury to both officers. The jury determined that conduct satisfied the
elements of interference with official acts resulting in bodily injury. On this
record, that determination is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly,
we affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The State charged Morris with five offenses arising out of a single
incident: one count of disarming or attempting to disarm a peace officer of a
dangerous weapon, two counts of child endangerment, and two counts of
interference with official acts resulting in bodily injury. A jury trial was held
in February 2025. The jury acquitted Morris of the disarming-a-peace-officer
and child-endangerment charges but found him guilty on both counts of
interference with official acts resulting in bodily injury under Iowa Code
section 719.1(1)(c) (2024).

On November 24, 2024, store employees at a Muscatine gas station
observed Morris both inside and around the store over an extended period
while his two infant daughters remained in a stroller near the entrance.
Employees testified the children were unattended at times, prompting
concern among staff and customers, some of whom checked on the infants
and adjusted their blankets. However, Morris maintained he remained just
outside the store within view of the children while attempting to arrange

2
transportation and periodically monitoring them through the store’s
windows.

Police were dispatched following a report that a man with small
children was going in and out of the store and possibly consuming alcohol.
Corporal Matthew Fowler responded and located Morris behind the store
with the infants. Fowler attempted to identify Morris and investigate the
report. During this interaction, Morris initially communicated nonverbally
and appeared to indicate he could not hear, prompting Fowler to write
questions. The officer later concluded Morris could hear after observing his
responses to the children.

As the encounter progressed, a second officer, Andrew Fry, arrived to
assist. By that time, a woman associated with Morris had arrived, and officers
arranged for the children’s mother to come to the scene. After additional
interaction, officers decided Morris would be placed under arrest. How the
arrest was initiated is disputed in the record. Evidence presented at trial
showed the officers moved to physically restrain Morris while he was still
holding the stroller containing the infants. The officers testified Morris failed
to comply with commands to release the stroller and resisted their efforts.
Morris testified he was attempting to ensure the children were safely
transferred to their mother before releasing his grip.

A physical struggle ensued. The officers pulled Morris’s arms while
attempting to secure him, and all three fell to the ground within seconds of
the initial contact. During the altercation, the children were moved away
from the scene. The struggle continued until officers deployed a taser and
finally secured Morris in handcuffs. Both officers sustained minor injuries
during the encounter.

3
Following trial, the district court entered judgment on the jury’s guilty
verdicts for two counts of interference with official acts resulting in bodily
injury. The court sentenced Morris to concurrent jail terms of 270 days on
each count, with a portion suspended, and placed him on probation. Morris
appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions for interference with official acts.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review Morris’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for
the correction of errors at law. State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202
(Iowa 2022). We defer to the jury’s verdict and will uphold the verdict if
supported by substantial evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence
sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. When conducting this review we construe evidence
“in the light most favorable to the State,” which includes any “legitimate
inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from
the record evidence.” Id. (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION
Morris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
convictions for interference with official acts resulting in bodily injury. His
argument focuses on the premise that he did not knowingly resist or obstruct
the officers, but instead was attempting to ensure the safety of his infant
children before complying with arrest. The record, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict, does not support that claim.

The jury was instructed that the State was required to prove Morris
knowingly resisted or obstructed a peace officer performing a lawful duty and
that his conduct resulted in bodily injury. Morris does not dispute the

4
officers’ status or that they were engaged in official duties. The dispute
centers on whether his conduct constituted knowing resistance or
obstruction.

The record contains substantial evidence from which a rational jury
could conclude that Morris’s conduct qualified as such. Officers made clear
to Morris that he was going to be placed under arrest. The evidence shows
Morris did not submit to that authority. Instead, he maintained his grip on
the stroller after repeated commands to release it, even as officers attempted
to secure his arms. The situation escalated immediately upon the officers’
attempt to take him into custody, culminating in a physical struggle that
brought all three individuals to the ground within seconds.

Although Morris characterizes his conduct as protective rather than
resistive, the jury was not required to accept that explanation. See State v.
Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 343 (Iowa 2021) (explaining a jury is “not required
to accept the defendant’s version of the events” (citation omitted)); State v.
Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022) (stating it is “for the jury to
decide which evidence to accept or reject”). The evidence permitted the
inference that, regardless of his stated concern for the children, Morris chose
to maintain control of the stroller in defiance of direct commands, thereby
preventing officers from effectuating the arrest. Even under Morris’s own
account, he intentionally held onto the stroller until he believed the children
were secure. That deliberate choice—made after being informed of the
impending arrest—supports a finding that he knowingly impeded the
officers’ efforts.

The physical nature of the encounter further supports the verdict.
Testimony established that once officers initiated the arrest, Morris did not
disengage but instead remained physically entangled, requiring officers to

5
forcibly separate him from the stroller and bring him to the ground. The
struggle did not end there. Officers testified that Morris continued to resist
on the ground until a taser was deployed and he could finally be restrained.
From this sequence, the jury could reasonably conclude that Morris’s
conduct went beyond passive noncompliance and constituted active
resistance.

The standard on appeal does not permit reweighing competing
narratives. “It is not our place 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.”
Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d at 256 (cleaned up). Here, the record shows Morris
was given commands, failed to comply, and engaged in a physical struggle
that resulted in injury to the officers. That is sufficient for the jury to
conclude that Morris knowingly resisted or obstructed the officers’ attempts
to place him under arrest. Finally, the bodily-injury element is supported by
the uncontroverted evidence that both officers sustained injuries during the
altercation. The jury could reasonably attribute those injuries to Morris’s
resistance during the arrest.

In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a
rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Morris knowingly
resisted or obstructed officers in the performance of their duties and that his
actions resulted in bodily injury. The convictions are therefore supported by
substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

6