In the Interest of E.C., Minor Child

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: April 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-0863
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0863 Filed April 9, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF E.C., Minor Child,

E.C., Minor Child, Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Ty Rogers,

Judge.

A juvenile challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

delinquency adjudication for criminal mischief in the fourth degree. AFFIRMED.

Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant minor child.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ. 2

AHLERS, Presiding Judge.

The State filed a delinquency petition charging a juvenile with criminal

mischief in the third degree based on the allegation that he slashed all four tires of

a car belonging to a classmate. The juvenile court adjudicated the juvenile

delinquent of the lesser-included offense of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

The juvenile appeals. He contends the evidence is insufficient to identify him as

the tire slasher.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in a delinquency

proceeding de novo. In re T.H., 913 N.W.2d 578, 582 (Iowa 2018). With de novo

review, we give weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings, especially as to witness

credibility, but we are not bound by them. In re D.S., 856 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Iowa

2014).

Based on our de novo review, we find the following facts. About one year

before the tire slashing, the juvenile took a romantic interest in a fellow classmate

at school. Although the two interacted enough that the juvenile became familiar

with the classmate’s car, as she gave him a ride in it, she did not reciprocate his

romantic interest in her. At the start of the next school year—late August 2023—

the juvenile sent an email to the classmate. She responded by email the same

day, stating, “I’d appreciate it if you don’t contact me from this point forward.” Over

the next few days, the juvenile sent several emails asking the classmate “why do

you hate me that much” and generally trying to get her to respond. The classmate

did not respond. This made the juvenile feel rejected and angry.

As the juvenile continued to send emails, the classmate contacted school

personnel and its school resource officer (a certified law enforcement officer) 3

asking them for help to get the juvenile to stop contacting her. The school resource

officer talked to the juvenile sometime around October, informing him that the

classmate did not want him to contact her and telling him to stop. The juvenile

stopped emailing,

On December 7, another student at the juvenile’s high school was waiting

in her car in the school parking lot about fifteen minutes before the end of the

school day to give a friend a ride. A person wearing a dark-colored cap, a green

and black jacket, and jeans caught her attention. He was the only other person in

the parking lot. The witness saw him beside a car two cars away from her when

she heard a sound like a popped tire and then a hissing sound like air being let out

of a ball. The person walked all the way around the car, which struck the witness

as odd. She then saw the person leave the car, walk to the only school bus at the

school, and get on it. The witness got out of her car, went to the car the person

had been walking around, and saw that all four tires had been slashed. The

witness went into the school and reported the incident.

After the witness gave the school resource officer details about what she

had seen, the officer suspected the tire slasher was the juvenile. The officer

showed the witness a photo of the juvenile, and she identified him as the person

she had seen by the car with the slashed tires. She also identified the juvenile as

the tire slasher during the delinquency adjudication hearing.

Further investigation revealed that the car with the slashed tires was driven

by the classmate who had asked the juvenile to stop contacting her. The car was

owned by the classmate’s mother. The investigation also revealed that there is a

single bus that arrives earlier than the other buses about fifteen minutes before the 4

end of the school day. The juvenile rides that bus, and the bus driver confirmed

he rode the bus that day while wearing clothes that matched the general

description given by the witness. Only fourteen students ride that bus.

As noted, based on these facts, the juvenile court found the juvenile to be

the person who slashed the victim’s tires and adjudicated him delinquent of

criminal mischief in the fourth degree. The juvenile attacks this finding, claiming

the witness’s identification was insufficient in general, but particularly because the

officer’s action in showing her one photo was unduly suggestive. He relies on

State v. Booth-Harris to contend that the showing of a single photo was so unduly

suggestive that we should find the witness’s testimony lacking in credibility. 942

N.W.2d 562, 570–77 (Iowa 2020).

We agree with the State that Booth-Harris does not help the juvenile here.

In Booth-Harris, the supreme court addressed the issue of whether “unnecessarily

suggestive pretrial out-of-court identification” should be suppressed. Id. at 570

(citation omitted). But the juvenile in this case did not seek suppression of the

identification evidence. In fact, he did not even object to it. So Booth-Harris does

not help him, and the identification evidence was properly available for the juvenile

court’s consideration and ours.

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to establish that the

juvenile is the person who slashed the victim’s tires, we are mindful that the juvenile

court found the witness from the parking lot particularly credible, in part because

she did not know the juvenile or the classmate before the incident. We are

deferential to this credibility finding. See id. at 571. Following our de novo review

with that deference in mind, we agree with the juvenile court that the juvenile is the 5

person who slashed the tires. Despite his testimony that he did not do it, the

evidence convinces us otherwise. The juvenile was angry with the classmate

because she did not return his romantic interest and had asked him to stop

contacting her. Multiple witnesses, including the juvenile, placed him in the school

parking lot at the time the tire slashing occurred—a time when no one else other

than the witness was around because school did not let out for another fifteen

minutes or so. The witness saw a person suspiciously walking around the victim’s

car when the witness heard a tire-popping sound and air hissing like air being let

out of a ball. That person was wearing clothes that matched the description the

juvenile gave of his own clothes on the day of the tire slashing. And the witness

saw the person walk away from the car with the slashed tires and get on the only

school bus at the school at that time—the same bus the juvenile rides. The bus

driver confirmed the juvenile got on the bus that day, and he was wearing clothes

very similar to those described by the witness.

Like the juvenile court, we are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that

the juvenile is the person who slashed the tires of his classmate’s car. As

identification is the only challenge the juvenile makes to his delinquency

adjudication, we affirm the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.