State of Iowa v. Shannon Knickerbocker ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1789
Filed December 21, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHANNON KNICKERBOCKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Margaret L.
Lingreen, Judge.
A defendant challenges his convictions for third-degree burglary and first-
degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Ida Heins, her daughter, and her twin granddaughters often spent
Saturday nights playing bingo in Harpers Ferry. When they returned to their
Luana trailer after 10 p.m. on August 27, 2011, they discovered someone had
broken in and taken their savings. Shannon Knickerbocker knew about the
family’s Saturday night bingo tradition. He also knew Heins had recently
borrowed money to finance a land purchase. But authorities did not charge
Knickerbocker until years later when his aunt, Shawna Knickerbocker,1 came
forward with information tying him to the crimes. In 2015, a jury convicted
Knickerbocker of burglary and theft, finding he stole more than $10,000 from the
Heinses.
Knickerbocker appeals the district court’s denial of his motion challenging
the jury verdicts as contrary to the weight of the evidence and the court’s ruling
Shawna was not an accomplice to the theft as a matter of law. Because
Knickerbocker fails to show the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for new trial, we decline to disturb the verdicts. As for the accomplice
issue, the district court correctly left the matter up to the jury, and regardless of
whether Shawna could have been convicted of theft, sufficient evidence
corroborates her testimony implicating her nephew. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Motivated to keep the family farm intact but unable to obtain a bank loan
to purchase twenty acres of an eighty-acre parcel, sixty-five-year-old Ida Heins
1
Because she shares a last name with defendant Knickerbocker, we will refer to
Shawna by her first name in this opinion.
3
borrowed $25,000 from her daughter-in-law in the spring of 2011 and another
$18,000 from her best friend later that summer. Both loans came in the form of
cash without written documentation. Heins kept the cash in two small lockboxes
in her bedroom until she was able to finalize the land deal with her half-sister,
Helen Upton. Upton and Heins had a strained relationship, and Heins believed
Upton was making it difficult for her to buy the land.
Upton’s daughter, Tiffany, was dating Knickerbocker in August 2011.
During that summer, Knickerbocker welcomed several people to live at his
house, including his aunt, Shawna; her boyfriend, John Bollman; and a teenager,
Cody McCarthy. Those three associates of Knickerbocker all testified against
him at the 2015 trial.
Shawna told the jury that on August 27, 2011, her nephew was gone for
about one hour in the morning, returned home, and “told John and Cody to put
their shoes on.” She also testified Knickerbocker supplied her with hydrocodone
pills, which affected her memory. Later that day, she received a text message
from Knickerbocker saying they were lying in a cornfield and predicting she
would “be happy when they returned.” According to Shawna, her nephew
returned about four hours later carrying a duffel bag and gave her $1000, telling
her not to spend it on big things and “to shut [her] mouth about the burglary.”
Shawna did not share this information with law enforcement until August 2013,
attributing her delay to “fear, being disloyal.”
Seventeen-year-old McCarthy testified he went along with Knickerbocker’s
plan to get money from the Heins trailer. According to McCarthy, on August 27,
2011, Bollman drove toward the trailer in a white Dodge Intrepid; McCarthy and
4
Knickerbocker were passengers. They parked at a graveyard and waited until
the Heins family left for bingo. McCarthy testified: “After we had seen them
leave, we had gone into the cornfield next to the house and went around to the
backside.” Knickerbocker pried the door open with a screwdriver, according to
the teenager’s testimony. Once inside, Knickerbocker told McCarthy to search
for money. McCarthy grabbed “two five-dollar bills attached to a couple teddy
bears.” Meanwhile, Knickerbocker was in the back bedroom going through two
lockboxes he pried open with the same screwdriver he used to gain entry.
According to McCarthy, Knickerbocker dumped the contents of the lockboxes
into a duffel bag before they left the trailer. Bollman drove them back to
Knickerbocker’s house. Knickerbocker gave McCarthy $500 of the stolen cash.
McCarthy did not talk to law enforcement until 2013.
Bollman offered a similar recollection of August 27, 2011. Bollman
testified Knickerbocker left his house in the morning and returned to say “he
wanted to go for a ride.” As Bollman drove the Dodge Intrepid, Knickerbocker
revealed his plan to “get some cash” from the Heins trailer. Bollman recalled
driving “past there a few different times” that afternoon. Bollman eventually
stopped and let Knickerbocker and McCarthy out in the cornfield at
Knickerbocker’s direction. More than one hour later, Knickerbocker called
Bollman to pick them up. Knickerbocker was carrying a duffel bag and pulled out
a wad of cash to show Bollman. Bollman testified he later helped Knickbocker
count the cash and received $5000 when they were done counting. Like
McCarthy, Bollman did not provide information to the authorities until Shawna,
his girlfriend, came forward in 2013.
5
When Ida Heins—along with her daughter and granddaughters—arrived
home from bingo at 10:30 p.m. on August 27, 2011, she noticed “everything was
topsy turvy” in her bedroom. The lockboxes were “busted open” and the
borrowed cash was gone. Ida’s daughter, Patricia, noticed piggy banks and
teddy bears belonging to her eight-year-old daughters were missing, as well as
$6000 of her own savings. Ida Heins called the Clayton County Sheriff’s Office.
The responding deputies discovered the back door had been pried open. Heins
identified Knickerbocker as a possible suspect. Heins told the deputy she had
seen Knickerbocker driving a blue truck past her house earlier that day. She also
recalled seeing a white car drive by before they left for bingo; she described the
driver as looking like Bollman.
Two other family members, Gina and Dalana Heins, testified to seeing
Knickerbocker drive past the property on August 27, 2011, when they were
outside doing yard work. Dalana recalled seeing Knickerbocker drive by in a
blue truck, and Gina later saw a white car go past carrying three people, one of
whom she believed to be Knickerbocker.
Deputy Brent Ostrander interviewed Knickerbocker about the break-in. At
Knickerbocker’s house, the deputy saw a blue Dodge pickup truck. During the
2011 interview, Knickerbocker discussed the land deal between Upton and
Heins, revealing he had read the contract drawn up by an attorney to facilitate
the sale. Knickerbocker denied any involvement in the burglary and told the
deputy his housemates—Shawna, Bollman, and McCarthy—could vouch for his
whereabouts. But the deputy did not talk with Knickerbocker’s housemates at
that time.
6
The case remained unsolved until August 2013, when Deputy Ostrander
interviewed Shawna, Bollman, and McCarthy. Following those interviews, the
State charged Knickerbocker with first-degree theft for unlawfully taking
possession of another’s property with a value exceeding $10,000, in violation of
Iowa Code sections 714.1 and 714.2(1) (2011), and third-degree burglary for
unlawfully entering an occupied structure having no right, license or privilege to
do so with the intent to commit a theft therein, in violation of sections 713.1 and
713.6A(1). The State did not charge Shawna, Bollman, or McCarthy with any
crimes.
Knickerbocker’s trial took place in July 2015. At the close of the evidence,
defense counsel asked the court to rule Shawna, Bollman, or McCarthy were
accomplices as a matter of law. The court agreed McCarthy was an accomplice
as a matter of law but allowed the jurors to consider whether they believed
Shawna and Bollman were accomplices, as defined in the jury instructions,
whose testimony required corroboration. The jury answered an interrogatory
finding Bollman fit the definition of an accomplice but Shawna did not. The jury
returned guilty verdicts on both counts and also answered an interrogatory
finding the value of the property taken by Knickerbocker exceeded $10,000.
Knickerbocker sought a new trial, alleging the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. The district court denied Knickerbocker’s new-trial
motion and imposed indeterminate sentences of ten years on the theft count and
five years on the burglary count. The court ran the terms concurrently,
suspended the prison time, and ordered Knickerbocker to serve two to five years
of probation. Knickerbocker now appeals, renewing his weight-of-the-evidence
7
challenge and contesting the court’s refusal to find Shawna was an accomplice
as a matter of law.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
When reviewing the district court’s denial of Knickerbocker’s motion for
new trial under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(2)(b)(6), we look only to
see if the court abused its wide discretion. See State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d
199, 202 (Iowa 2003). “On a weight-of-the-evidence claim, appellate review is
limited to a review of the exercise of discretion by the trial court, not of the
underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.”
Id. at 203 (clarifying appellate court does not sit to judge witness credibility or
reweigh evidence).
We review Knickerbocker’s accomplice claim for the correction of errors at
law. See State v. Douglas, 675 N.W.2d 567, 570–71 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis
A. Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying the motion
for new trial?
In his motion for new trial, Knickerbocker alleged the greater amount of
credible evidence supported his position that he did not participate in the burglary
and theft. He complained of “uncorroborated accomplice testimony” and the lack
of physical evidence linking him to the crimes. He also challenged the State’s
proof that the value of the stolen property exceeded $10,000.
Before overruling Knickerbocker’s motion, the district court offered the
following evaluation of the evidence:
At trial, John Bollman and Cody McCarthy, accomplices,
testified as to [Knickerbocker’s] involvement in the crimes at the
8
victim’s residence. Corroboration of the accomplices’ testimony
was provided by Shawna Knickerbocker, Gina Heins, Ida Heins,
and Delana Heins. The jury determined Shawna Knickerbocker
was not an accomplice. The testimony of Gina Heins, Ida Heins,
and Delana Heins placed [Knickerbocker] and accomplice near the
location of the Heins residence earlier in the day the crime was
committed.
Ida Heins testified as to the items, including money, taken
from her residence. Two individuals who had advanced monies to
Ida Heins confirmed Ida Heins’s receipt of the monies.
The district court recognized its ability to set aside the jury’s verdicts if
they were “contrary to the weight of the evidence and a miscarriage of justice
may have resulted.” See Nguyen v. State, 707 N.W.2d 317, 327 (Iowa 2005).
But the court decided the evidence at Knickerbocker’s trial did not “preponderate
heavily against the jury’s verdict.”
On appeal, Knickerbocker contends the State’s witnesses who implicated
him were not credible. He asserts the inconsistencies in their testimony and their
motivations for accusing him “shed a great deal of doubt on their testimony.”
The foibles of the State’s witnesses were on full display for the jury.
Defense counsel cross-examined Shawna, Bollman, and McCarthy regarding the
leniency they received for their testimony. The jury learned of Shawna’s drug
addiction and her prior false testimony. These witnesses had information about
the crimes because—to various degrees—they interacted with Knickerbocker
before, during, or after the burglary, and all received some of the ill-gotten gains.
As the prosecutor told the jurors during closing argument: “If you’re going to cast
a play in hell, don’t expect the actors to be angels.” Under no delusion the
State’s witnesses were angels, the jury nevertheless believed their testimony
connecting Knickerbocker to the burglary and theft.
9
Because it is the function of the jury to believe or disbelieve witnesses, the
power to grant a new trial is reserved for those “exceptional cases” where the
credible evidence tips the scales dramatically away from a guilty verdict. See
State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998) (citation omitted). The district
court did not see this as an exceptional case. It found sufficient corroboration of
the accomplices in the testimony of Ida Heins, as well as Gina and Delana Heins.
The district court did “exactly what it was required to do under a weight-of-the-
evidence standard.” See Reeves, 670 N.W.2d at 209. It carefully weighed the
evidence, determined credibility, and gave sufficient reasons for its decision. It is
not our job to reassess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. The district
court acted well within its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.
B. Was Shawna Knickerbocker an accomplice as a matter of law?
The State cannot convict a defendant based solely on accomplice
testimony. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(3). When relying on accomplice testimony, the
State must offer corroborating evidence that independently links the defendant to
the crime. Douglas, 675 N.W.2d at 568–69. Corroboration need not be strong
nor go to the whole case. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa 1994).
The testimony of one accomplice may not be used to corroborate the testimony
of another accomplice. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 824 (Iowa 2010).
Our case law defines an accomplice as someone who “could be charged
with and convicted of the specific offense for which an accused is on trial.”
Douglas, 675 N.W.2d at 571 (citation omitted). Standing alone, proof that a
person knew the accused was planning the crime or was present when the
accused committed the crime is not enough to brand the person as an
10
accomplice. Id. The defense must show by a preponderance of the evidence
the person was somehow involved in the commission of the crime. Id. “When
the facts and circumstances are undisputed and permit only one inference,
whether a witness is an accomplice is a question of law for the court.” Id. But if
the facts are disputed or give rise to different inferences, the accomplice question
is for the jury. Id.At trial, defense counsel argued all three of Knickerbocker’s
housemates—Shawna, Bollman, and McCarthy—were accomplices as a matter
of law. Counsel asserted Shawna “could be charged under a theory of aiding
and abetting, that she was aware of this supposed plan, that she had received
text messages during the supposed incident and that she supposedly received
money.” The court instructed the jury McCarthy was an accomplice but found the
status of Shawna and of Bollman gave rise to different factual inferences and,
therefore, posed questions for the jury. The jury decided Bollman was an
accomplice but Shawna was not.
On appeal, Knickerbocker argues the district court erred in not instructing
the jury Shawna was an accomplice to the theft.2 He points out Shawna
admitted on the witness stand she accepted $1000 from him knowing it was
stolen and did not return the cash to the Heinses or turn it over to authorities.
The State contends Knickerbocker’s argument is foreclosed by State v.
Houston, 211 N.W.2d 598, 601 (Iowa 1973), where the supreme court held a
witness who later received stolen property from a defendant being prosecuted for
receiving stolen property was not an accomplice because the later receipt was
2
Knickerbocker does not argue Shawna was an accomplice to the burglary.
11
not the same offense for which defendant was on trial. We agree the logic of
Houston undermines Knickerbocker’s position. While the State may have been
able to prosecute Shawna for possession of stolen property she received from
her nephew, that offense was different and separate from Knickerbocker’s act of
taking the money from the Heinses. The district court correctly determined
Shawna was not an accomplice as a matter of law.
But even if Shawna had been an accomplice to Knickerbocker’s theft from
the Heinses, the State presented sufficient evidence to corroborate her version of
events and to support the jury’s guilty verdict. Shawna testified to Knickerbocker
leaving the house twice on August 27, 2011, first on his own and later with
Bollman and McCarthy. The testimony of Ida Heins, as well as that of Gina and
Dalana Heins, about the unusual traffic they saw on their rural Luana road that
day provided a vital link between Knickerbocker and his confederates and the
theft discovered at the trailer later that night. Knickerbocker cannot show he was
prejudiced by the district court’s determination that Shawna was not an
accomplice to the theft as a matter of law.
AFFIRMED.