State of Iowa v. Brendan Michael Schurman

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: February 8, 2023
• Docket: 21-1002
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-1002 Filed February 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRENDAN MICHAEL SCHURMAN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Daniel Vakulskas,

District Associate Judge.

Brendan Schurman appeals his conviction for domestic abuse assault

causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.

Rees Conrad Douglas, Sioux City, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023). 2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Brendan Schurman appeals from his conviction for domestic abuse assault

causing bodily injury, arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.

We affirm.

Schurman and B. were intermittently in a romantic relationship from 2014

until 2018, and they had one child together during this time. In January 2020, the

child lived with B. in Sioux County. Schurman told B. he planned to move to Texas

soon, and he asked to see the child before he left. At B.’s invitation, Schurman

went to her home on January 20 for supper and to say goodbye to the child. After

supper, Schurman put the child to bed and B. sat down on the living room couch;

later, Schurman joined her on the couch.

According to B.’s testimony, at this time she was participating in multiple

text conversations on her two cell phones—one work phone and one personal

phone. Schurman apparently wanted to talk to her; after he joined her on the

couch, he seemed annoyed B. was paying so much attention to her phones and

not to him. He told her a few times to put down her phones. When she continued

using her phones, he grabbed her left thigh and squeezed it until she put down her

phones. Schurman’s actions physically hurt and frightened B. After an argument,

he eventually left her home at her urging. He moved to Texas the next day.

Later that night, B. noticed red marks on her thigh where Schurman

squeezed her. Her thigh began bruising the next day in the same area. She took

photographs of the bruising on January 23, 24, and 25, and these photographs

were admitted into evidence at trial. She reported his actions to police on January

30. She testified she did not go to the police sooner because she was afraid of 3

Schurman and she wanted to be sure he was not coming back to Iowa. An officer

took another photograph of her bruising at the time, which was also admitted into

evidence.

Schurman was charged with domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.

The matter proceeded to a bench trial on May 11, 2021. The district court found

him guilty as charged. He now appeals.

“We review the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law.”

State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022) (quoting State v. Buman, 955

N.W.2d 215, 219 (Iowa 2021)). “The [factfinder’s] verdict binds this court if the

verdict is 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. “In determining whether the [factfinder’s] verdict is

supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State, including all ‘legitimate inferences and presumptions that

may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’” Id. (quoting

State v. Tipton, 897 N.W.2d 653, 692 (Iowa 2017)).

Schurman argues the evidence is insufficient to prove he assaulted B. See

Iowa Code § 708.2A(1) (2020) (defining “domestic abuse assault” to mean “an

assault” under specified conditions). A conviction for assault causing bodily injury

requires the State to prove the defendant “acted with the specific intent to cause

pain or injury to the victim, to result in physical contact that would be insulting or

offensive to the victim, or to place the victim in fear of physical contact that would

be injurious or offensive.” State v. Vandermark, 956 N.W.2d 888, 892 (Iowa 2021).

“[S]pecific intent requires an act calculated to produce a result that the law forbids.” 4

State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 264 (Iowa 2010). “Specific intent is seldom

capable of direct proof” and is often “shown by circumstantial evidence and the

reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence.” State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50,

55 (Iowa 2021) (quoting State v. Walker, 574 N.W.2d 280, 289 (Iowa 1998)).

At trial, Schurman denied that there was any tension between himself and

B. or that he squeezed her leg that night. By contrast, B. testified Schurman

intentionally squeezed her thigh to compel her to put down her phones and talk to

him. She further testified he squeezed her hard enough to cause pain and fear in

the moment and to leave redness and deep bruising for days after the encounter.

The district court explicitly found her testimony more credible, and it is entitled to

do so. See State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670, 673 (Iowa 1993) (“The [factfinder]

is free to believe or disbelieve any testimony as it chooses and to give weight to

the evidence as in its judgment such evidence should receive.”). Furthermore, the

photographs of her bruising are consistent with her testimony about Schurman

tightly squeezing her thigh. Her testimony and the photographs comprise

substantial evidence to conclude Schurman had the specific intent to assault B. on

the night in question. We affirm his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing

bodily injury.

AFFIRMED.