IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0764 Filed September 4, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIAN ALAN MANNING, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mark R. Lawson,
Judge.
Brian Manning appeals his conviction for second-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
R. Ben Stone of Parrish Kruidenier LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and
Doyle, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
DOYLE, Senior Judge.
Brian Manning appeals his conviction for second-degree murder after
shooting and killing Michael Berg in November 2022. We reject Manning’s claims
that his conviction is unsupported by the weight or sufficiency of the evidence.
Because Manning failed to preserve error on his remaining claims, we affirm.
The evidence shows that Manning and Berg were friends for about ten
years. At the time of the shooting, Berg was considering renting a house on
property owned by Mannings’ parents. Manning, who managed the rental, gave
Berg a ride to see the property. On the drive, Manning stopped at a store to allow
Berg to buy vodka. Berg chugged vodka from the bottle during the drive.
Berg had a reputation for acting aggressively while intoxicated, and an
altercation began soon after they arrived at the property. Manning fired one round
from a .38 caliber pistol into the ground as a warning. Manning’s father, Bruce,
heard the shot and Manning yelling that Berg was trying to kill him. Bruce ran over
as Berg attempted to punch Manning. After Manning pushed Berg away, Berg
grabbed Bruce around the neck. Manning became alarmed because Bruce had
metal implants installed to stabilize his vertebrae after sustaining a life-threatening
neck injury two years earlier. Afraid that Berg might paralyze or kill his father,
Manning fired another warning shot into the ground. When Manning tried to pull
Berg’s arm away from Bruce’s neck, Berg squeezed it harder. Berg slammed
Bruce’s head against a tree, and Manning shot Berg in the chest. Berg died as a
result.
A jury found Manning guilty of second-degree murder. Manning moved for
new trial and in arrest of judgment, arguing that the prosecutor engaged in 3
misconduct and the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Manning
concedes that his trial counsel failed to preserve error by challenging the instances
of misconduct when they occurred. See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526
(Iowa 2011) (“Krogmann cannot obtain a new trial based on prosecutorial
misconduct when he failed to move for a mistrial at the time.”). Because
defendants can no longer raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
appeal, see Iowa Code § 814.7 (2024), Manning asks us to reexamine existing
precedent and allow direct appeal of claims of prosecutorial misconduct during
closing argument without a timely objection. We are not at liberty to do so. See
State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). Likewise, we reject
Manning’s claim that the court should have considered whether he was guilty of
the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter while weighing the evidence
of his guilt because he never raised the claim to the trial court and thus waived
error on appeal. See State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (“[I]t is
unfair to allow a party to choose to remain silent in the trial court in the face of
error, taking a chance on a favorable outcome, and subsequently assert error on
appeal if the outcome in the trial court is unfavorable.” (citation omitted)).
We turn then to Manning’s claim that the weight of the evidence goes
against the jury’s verdict regarding justification and malice aforethought. We
review rulings on motions for new trial asserting a verdict contradicts the weight of
the evidence for abuse of discretion. See State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa
2016). District courts grant new trials only in exceptional circumstances. See id.
at 705. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion on
clearly untenable grounds or to a clearly unreasonable extent. See State v. 4
Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 564 (Iowa 2018). A verdict is not contrary to the weight
of the evidence unless “a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side
of an issue or cause than the other.” Id. at 570 (citation omitted).
At sentencing, the court recounted the evidence for and against the jury’s
findings concerning justification and malice aforethought in detail, spanning
roughly ten pages of trial transcript. Although Manning claims he shot Berg out of
concern for his father’s wellbeing, the court noted that Manning pulled his firearm
and shot into the ground “in the midst of a relatively innocuous argument” before
his father was involved. As the court observed, Manning displayed a volatile
temper a couple of times in video viewed by the jury, showing Manning could form
malice and malice aforethought in “a very short period of time.” It also noted that
an instruction allowed the jury to infer malice aforethought from Manning’s use of
a firearm. And though Manning’s father presented evidence supporting his
justification defense, the court cited reasons to doubt that testimony.
Finally, Manning claims that insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict
on the questions of justification and malice aforethought. We review challenges to
the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of legal errors and uphold the verdict
if substantial evidence supports it. State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Iowa
2001). Evidence is substantial if it could convince a rational fact finder that the
defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Id. We review the evidence,
including all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may be reasonably drawn
from the record, in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we agree that
substantial evidence supports Manning’s conviction for second-degree murder. 5
The jury was permitted to infer malice aforethought based on Manning’s use of a
deadly weapon. Video of Manning after the shooting and the fact that it occurred
after an altercation with Berg further support that finding. And discrepancies
between the testimony of Manning’s father and the physical evidence is enough
for the jury to reject the justification defense.
In the alternative, Manning argues that the case shows, at most, that he
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0764 Filed September 4, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIAN ALAN MANNING, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Mark R. Lawson,
Judge.
Brian Manning appeals his conviction for second-degree murder.
AFFIRMED.
R. Ben Stone of Parrish Kruidenier LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and
Doyle, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
DOYLE, Senior Judge.
Brian Manning appeals his conviction for second-degree murder after
shooting and killing Michael Berg in November 2022. We reject Manning’s claims
that his conviction is unsupported by the weight or sufficiency of the evidence.
Because Manning failed to preserve error on his remaining claims, we affirm.
The evidence shows that Manning and Berg were friends for about ten
years. At the time of the shooting, Berg was considering renting a house on
property owned by Mannings’ parents. Manning, who managed the rental, gave
Berg a ride to see the property. On the drive, Manning stopped at a store to allow
Berg to buy vodka. Berg chugged vodka from the bottle during the drive.
Berg had a reputation for acting aggressively while intoxicated, and an
altercation began soon after they arrived at the property. Manning fired one round
from a .38 caliber pistol into the ground as a warning. Manning’s father, Bruce,
heard the shot and Manning yelling that Berg was trying to kill him. Bruce ran over
as Berg attempted to punch Manning. After Manning pushed Berg away, Berg
grabbed Bruce around the neck. Manning became alarmed because Bruce had
metal implants installed to stabilize his vertebrae after sustaining a life-threatening
neck injury two years earlier. Afraid that Berg might paralyze or kill his father,
Manning fired another warning shot into the ground. When Manning tried to pull
Berg’s arm away from Bruce’s neck, Berg squeezed it harder. Berg slammed
Bruce’s head against a tree, and Manning shot Berg in the chest. Berg died as a
result.
A jury found Manning guilty of second-degree murder. Manning moved for
new trial and in arrest of judgment, arguing that the prosecutor engaged in 3
misconduct and the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Manning
concedes that his trial counsel failed to preserve error by challenging the instances
of misconduct when they occurred. See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526
(Iowa 2011) (“Krogmann cannot obtain a new trial based on prosecutorial
misconduct when he failed to move for a mistrial at the time.”). Because
defendants can no longer raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct
appeal, see Iowa Code § 814.7 (2024), Manning asks us to reexamine existing
precedent and allow direct appeal of claims of prosecutorial misconduct during
closing argument without a timely objection. We are not at liberty to do so. See
State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). Likewise, we reject
Manning’s claim that the court should have considered whether he was guilty of
the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter while weighing the evidence
of his guilt because he never raised the claim to the trial court and thus waived
error on appeal. See State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (“[I]t is
unfair to allow a party to choose to remain silent in the trial court in the face of
error, taking a chance on a favorable outcome, and subsequently assert error on
appeal if the outcome in the trial court is unfavorable.” (citation omitted)).
We turn then to Manning’s claim that the weight of the evidence goes
against the jury’s verdict regarding justification and malice aforethought. We
review rulings on motions for new trial asserting a verdict contradicts the weight of
the evidence for abuse of discretion. See State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686, 706 (Iowa
2016). District courts grant new trials only in exceptional circumstances. See id.
at 705. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its discretion on
clearly untenable grounds or to a clearly unreasonable extent. See State v. 4
Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 564 (Iowa 2018). A verdict is not contrary to the weight
of the evidence unless “a greater amount of credible evidence supports one side
of an issue or cause than the other.” Id. at 570 (citation omitted).
At sentencing, the court recounted the evidence for and against the jury’s
findings concerning justification and malice aforethought in detail, spanning
roughly ten pages of trial transcript. Although Manning claims he shot Berg out of
concern for his father’s wellbeing, the court noted that Manning pulled his firearm
and shot into the ground “in the midst of a relatively innocuous argument” before
his father was involved. As the court observed, Manning displayed a volatile
temper a couple of times in video viewed by the jury, showing Manning could form
malice and malice aforethought in “a very short period of time.” It also noted that
an instruction allowed the jury to infer malice aforethought from Manning’s use of
a firearm. And though Manning’s father presented evidence supporting his
justification defense, the court cited reasons to doubt that testimony.
Finally, Manning claims that insufficient evidence supports the jury’s verdict
on the questions of justification and malice aforethought. We review challenges to
the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of legal errors and uphold the verdict
if substantial evidence supports it. State v. Heard, 636 N.W.2d 227, 229 (Iowa
2001). Evidence is substantial if it could convince a rational fact finder that the
defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Id. We review the evidence,
including all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may be reasonably drawn
from the record, in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we agree that
substantial evidence supports Manning’s conviction for second-degree murder. 5
The jury was permitted to infer malice aforethought based on Manning’s use of a
deadly weapon. Video of Manning after the shooting and the fact that it occurred
after an altercation with Berg further support that finding. And discrepancies
between the testimony of Manning’s father and the physical evidence is enough
for the jury to reject the justification defense.
In the alternative, Manning argues that the case shows, at most, that he
committed voluntary manslaughter. We agree that a rational jury could find
Manning guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than second-degree murder. But
the fact that a different jury may have reached a different conclusion does not
render the evidence insufficient for second-degree murder. See State v. Keeton,
710 N.W.2d 531, 535 (Iowa 2006) (“[I]t is not for us to interfere with the finding
made when supported by substantial evidence, even though the evidence may
have also supported a finding favorable to the defendant.”).
Because Manning’s conviction for second-degree murder is supported by
both the weight and sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.