State of Iowa v. Jesus Antonio Murillo ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-2080
Filed March 3, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JESUS ANTONIO MURILLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Mark R. Lawson,
Judge.
Jesus Antonio Murillo appeals his conviction for willful injury causing bodily
injury. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey L. Powell of Powell & McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Jesus Antonio Murillo appeals his conviction for willful injury. His sole
challenge on appeal is whether sufficient evidence was presented to support his
conviction. Specifically, Murillo argues the State failed to prove intent to commit
serious injury and therefore the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of
acquittal was in error. We find the record contains substantial evidence to support
the conviction. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background and Prior Proceedings
On July 11, 2019, Ricardo Trevino and Murillo began drinking in a wooded
area of a park in Muscatine, Iowa.1 At some point after the two consumed alcohol
in the park, Trevino and Murillo traveled to the home of Trevino’s stepfather, Jose
Gomez-Medina.
While at the home, Murillo began repeatedly punching Trevino. Trevino
was knocked unconscious and fell to the ground. Murillo, however, continued
punching and kicking Trevino in the head and ribs. The force of Murillo’s kicks left
shoelace imprints on Trevino’s torso.
As Murillo continued to inflict blows on Trevino outside the residence,
Gomez-Medina rushed out of his home to intervene. However, Murillo charged
Gomez-Medina, causing Gomez-Medina to retreat into his home.
Deanna Reed, who was driving by the Gomez-Medina home, witnessed
Murillo punching and kicking Trevino. Reed pulled her vehicle over, exited, and
began to shout at Murillo in an attempt to stop the assault. Reed, who did not
1Trevino and Murillo had purchased “thirteen shooters of 99 Bananas” prior to
going to the wooded area of the park.
3
know the identity of either man at the time, observed Murillo strike Trevino multiple
times. Murillo charged Reed, causing Reed to retreat into her vehicle. At the time,
Reed believed Trevino was dead. Murillo turned his attention back to Trevino,
continuing to kick the unconscious Trevino. At some point, Murillo was able to
enter the Gomez-Medina home and officers took him into custody at this location.2
Trevino sustained a broken nose and a fractured orbital bone in his left eye.
Murillo was charged with willful injury in violation of Iowa Code section
708.4(1) (2019), a class “C” felony. At Murillo’s jury trial on September 20, 2019,
Murillo filed a motion for directed verdict, arguing the State had not proven by a
preponderance of the evidence the alleged victim received a serious injury as
defined by law. The trial court granted the motion for directed verdict and
dismissed the charge of willful injury under Iowa Code section 708.4(1). The court
allowed the jury to consider the lesser charge of willful injury under Iowa Code
section 708.4(2), a class “D” felony.3
The jury returned a guilty verdict on the willful injury charge. Murillo was
sentenced on December 13, 2019, to an indeterminate five years of incarceration
but was granted a suspended sentence. The minimum fine was imposed, and
Murillo was ordered to successfully complete programming at the Residential
Correctional Facility in Davenport. Murillo now appeals.
2 Although not at issue in this appeal, after the assault on Trevino, Murillo assaulted
the homeowner’s daughter, rendering her unconscious.
3 As part of the district court’s oral ruling on the motion for judgment of acquittal,
the court held that the State failed to prove Trevino suffered a serious injury but
held that “a rational fact finder could find the defendant had an intent to inflict
serious injury.”
4
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
A. Standard of Review
Sufficiency-of-evidence claims are reviewed for correction of errors at law.
State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). A verdict is binding upon this
court and will be upheld unless it is not supported by substantial evidence. State
v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017). Substantial evidence is evidence
that would convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. If evidence raises mere suspicion, speculation, or
conjecture, it is not substantial. State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016).
We consider all evidence in the record, not just evidence supporting guilt. Tipton,
897 N.W.2d at 692. We view all relevant evidence in the light most favorable to
the prosecution. Id.
B. Merits
The elements of willful injury pursuant to Iowa Code section 708.4(2)
include: (1) committing an act which is not justified, (2) with the intent to cause
serious injury, and (3) causing bodily injury. State v. Benedict, No. 14-1496, 2015
WL 3876796, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 24, 2015). Murillo’s sole claim on appeal
is the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict
that he intended to cause serious injury to Trevino. Murillo cites the district court’s
ruling on the original charge that the State failed as a matter of law to prove a
serious injury occurred. We begin with noting Murillo was convicted of willful injury
in violation of Iowa Code section 708.4(2), and as such, “the evidence only needed
to support a finding that a bodily injury occurred, not that a serious injury was
inflicted.” See State v. Vandermark, No. 19-2112, 2021 WL 210972, at *4 (Iowa
5
Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021). As to the intent, Murillo argues there was inadequate
evidence he intended to cause a serious injury, as “there was not testimony at
Murillo’s trial regarding [the victim’s] injuries that would indicate anything beyond
mere bodily injuries. No additional evidence regarding Murillo’s intent was
presented.”
We reject Murillo’s argument. We are convinced that a rational jury could
have found the evidence established Murillo possessed the requisite intent. As
both the State and Murillo concede, “proof of intent usually consists of
circumstantial evidence and the inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.”
State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686, 692 (Iowa 1996). The jury can “infer intent from
the normal consequences of one’s actions.” State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720, 724–
25 (Iowa 2003). The jury can also infer intent from the extent of the victim’s injuries.
State v. Bell, 223 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1974).
Murillo punched the victim repeatedly with his fists. After the victim was
unconscious, Murillo kicked the victim multiple times in the head and ribs. The
victim remained on the ground, unresponsive. Murillo struck the victim in his head
with enough force to fracture the victim’s nose and orbital bone. Murillo kicked the
victim in the chest with enough force to leave shoelace imprints on the victim’s
torso. While Murillo was attacking the victim, two bystanders tried to intervene but
were deterred by Murillo. Murillo, even after being interrupted on two separate
occasions by the bystanders, continued to strike the unconscious victim.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including
reasonable inferences, there is substantial evidence from which the jury could find
Murillo intended to inflict a serious injury upon the victim. Therefore, the court did
6
not err in denying Murillo’s motion for acquittal. Accordingly, we affirm Murillo’s
conviction for willful injury pursuant to Iowa Code section 708.4(2).
AFFIRMED.