IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-2002 Filed May 8, 2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DENNIS WAYNE RUPPE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gregory W.
Steensland, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury
causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal
mischief. AFFIRMED.
Matthew Knipe and Allison Schwach of Berry Law Firm, Omaha, Nebraska,
for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
Dennis Ruppe appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury
causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal
mischief. We do not address Ruppe’s claim he received ineffective assistance of
counsel while the court was polling the jury, as we do not address claims of
ineffective assistance in a direct appeal. Ruppe did not file a pretrial objection to
the venue and this issue is therefore waived. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Ruppe’s motion for a new trial. We affirm Ruppe’s
convictions.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
From evidence presented during the trial, the jury could find the following
facts. On June 6, 2021, the two teenage children of Carnell Walker heard a
popping sound outside in the alley behind their house. When they looked out, they
saw the tires on Walker’s work van had been slashed and Ruppe was walking
towards his home with a knife. The two children told their father what they saw.
Walker told his wife to call 911. He went over to Ruppe’s house to ask what was
going on.
Walker testified that as he came toward Ruppe’s house, Ruppe rushed at
him with the knife. The two men struggled to gain control of the knife. On video
from a Ring doorbell, someone says, “Hey, motherf***er, you come on over here,
you’re going to die.” Walker stated that as he was trying to get away, Ruppe
slashed his back. He received lacerations on his chest, left torso, right clavicle,
back, chin, and right neck. Walker’s children came down the alley towards the
fight. Walker yelled at them to run; Walker and his children went back to his house. 3
Alonso Limas, who lived nearby, testified he heard air coming out of tires
and a commotion. He saw Walker bleeding as Walker went back to his house.
Limas walked down the alley towards Ruppe’s residence. Ruppe pointed a gun at
him, so Limas turned around and went back home.
Council Bluffs police officers quickly responded to the scene. They
observed Walker’s injuries and obtained medical assistance for him. When they
talked to Ruppe, he had an injury to his thumb. Officers followed a trail of blood
droplets to Ruppe’s parents’ house, which was next door to Ruppe’s house. After
obtaining a search warrant, they found Ruppe’s bloody keys and wallet in the
parents’ home. In Ruppe’s home, officers found a bloody knife inside a boot.
Ruppe presented a defense of justification. He claimed there were noise
disturbances in the neighborhood. Ruppe testified that he complained to Walker
about the noise. He admitted that he poked holes in the tires of Walker’s work van.
Ruppe stated that after he returned to his property, he jumped at an unknown
person he believed was trespassing. He testified that a fight ensued while he was
holding the knife. Ruppe stated that he pulled out his firearm to scare Limas away.
The jury found Ruppe guilty of attempted murder, in violation of Iowa Code
section 707.11(1) (2021); willful injury causing serious injury, in violation of section
708.4(1); assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, in violation of section
708.2(3); and fourth-degree criminal mischief, in violation of section 716.6(1)(a)(1).
The court polled the jury but the record shows only eleven jurors were asked if they
agreed with the verdict.
Ruppe filed a motion for new trial. He claimed the verdict was not
unanimous, the State did not prove venue, and the verdict was contrary to the 4
weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion for new trial. Ruppe was
sentenced to terms of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years and ten years
on the first two counts, to be served concurrently. Ruppe was sentenced to sixty
days in jail on each of the other two counts, these two sentences to be served
concurrently. The sentences on the first two counts are to be served consecutively
to the sentences on the third and fourth counts. Ruppe appeals his convictions.
II. Unanimous Jury
When the jury returned the verdict in this case, the district court individually
polled the jury, but the record shows the court only questioned eleven jurors.
Defense counsel did not bring this issue to the court’s attention at a time the court
could have corrected any problem. On appeal, Ruppe contends he received
ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not object when the district
court polled only eleven jurors about the verdict.
Ruppe’s appellate brief admits, “[u]nder Iowa’s current preservation
structure, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.” Under
section 814.7, a court does not have authority to address a claim of ineffective
assistance in a direct appeal. State v. Rutherford, 997 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Iowa
2023).
Ruppe asserts the issue could be addressed under the plain error rule. The
Iowa Supreme Court has rejected the use of the plain error rule in Iowa. State v.
Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain
error rule in Iowa, have been persistent in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to
yield on this point.”); accord State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021)
(“We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.”). We 5
are not at liberty to overrule supreme court precedent. Bomgaars v. State, 967
N.W.2d 41, 48 n.4 (Iowa 2021). We do not address in this direct appeal Ruppe’s
claims regarding whether the verdict was given by a unanimous jury.
III. Venue
Ruppe asserts the State did not adequately show the offenses occurred in
Pottawattamie County.1 “Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed for
corrections of errors at law.” State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293, 298 (Iowa 2019).
In general, “[a] criminal action shall be tried in the county in which the crime
is committed.” Iowa Code § 803.2(1). Additionally, “[a]ll objections to venue are
waived by a defendant unless the defendant objects thereto and secures a ruling
by the trial court on a pretrial motion for change of venue.” Id. § 803.2(3). Ruppe
did not object to the venue in Pottawattamie County prior to the trial and, therefore,
any objections on this issue have been waived. See State v. Sierra-Rojas, No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-2002 Filed May 8, 2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DENNIS WAYNE RUPPE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gregory W.
Steensland, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury
causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal
mischief. AFFIRMED.
Matthew Knipe and Allison Schwach of Berry Law Firm, Omaha, Nebraska,
for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2024). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
Dennis Ruppe appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury
causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal
mischief. We do not address Ruppe’s claim he received ineffective assistance of
counsel while the court was polling the jury, as we do not address claims of
ineffective assistance in a direct appeal. Ruppe did not file a pretrial objection to
the venue and this issue is therefore waived. The district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Ruppe’s motion for a new trial. We affirm Ruppe’s
convictions.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
From evidence presented during the trial, the jury could find the following
facts. On June 6, 2021, the two teenage children of Carnell Walker heard a
popping sound outside in the alley behind their house. When they looked out, they
saw the tires on Walker’s work van had been slashed and Ruppe was walking
towards his home with a knife. The two children told their father what they saw.
Walker told his wife to call 911. He went over to Ruppe’s house to ask what was
going on.
Walker testified that as he came toward Ruppe’s house, Ruppe rushed at
him with the knife. The two men struggled to gain control of the knife. On video
from a Ring doorbell, someone says, “Hey, motherf***er, you come on over here,
you’re going to die.” Walker stated that as he was trying to get away, Ruppe
slashed his back. He received lacerations on his chest, left torso, right clavicle,
back, chin, and right neck. Walker’s children came down the alley towards the
fight. Walker yelled at them to run; Walker and his children went back to his house. 3
Alonso Limas, who lived nearby, testified he heard air coming out of tires
and a commotion. He saw Walker bleeding as Walker went back to his house.
Limas walked down the alley towards Ruppe’s residence. Ruppe pointed a gun at
him, so Limas turned around and went back home.
Council Bluffs police officers quickly responded to the scene. They
observed Walker’s injuries and obtained medical assistance for him. When they
talked to Ruppe, he had an injury to his thumb. Officers followed a trail of blood
droplets to Ruppe’s parents’ house, which was next door to Ruppe’s house. After
obtaining a search warrant, they found Ruppe’s bloody keys and wallet in the
parents’ home. In Ruppe’s home, officers found a bloody knife inside a boot.
Ruppe presented a defense of justification. He claimed there were noise
disturbances in the neighborhood. Ruppe testified that he complained to Walker
about the noise. He admitted that he poked holes in the tires of Walker’s work van.
Ruppe stated that after he returned to his property, he jumped at an unknown
person he believed was trespassing. He testified that a fight ensued while he was
holding the knife. Ruppe stated that he pulled out his firearm to scare Limas away.
The jury found Ruppe guilty of attempted murder, in violation of Iowa Code
section 707.11(1) (2021); willful injury causing serious injury, in violation of section
708.4(1); assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, in violation of section
708.2(3); and fourth-degree criminal mischief, in violation of section 716.6(1)(a)(1).
The court polled the jury but the record shows only eleven jurors were asked if they
agreed with the verdict.
Ruppe filed a motion for new trial. He claimed the verdict was not
unanimous, the State did not prove venue, and the verdict was contrary to the 4
weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion for new trial. Ruppe was
sentenced to terms of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years and ten years
on the first two counts, to be served concurrently. Ruppe was sentenced to sixty
days in jail on each of the other two counts, these two sentences to be served
concurrently. The sentences on the first two counts are to be served consecutively
to the sentences on the third and fourth counts. Ruppe appeals his convictions.
II. Unanimous Jury
When the jury returned the verdict in this case, the district court individually
polled the jury, but the record shows the court only questioned eleven jurors.
Defense counsel did not bring this issue to the court’s attention at a time the court
could have corrected any problem. On appeal, Ruppe contends he received
ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not object when the district
court polled only eleven jurors about the verdict.
Ruppe’s appellate brief admits, “[u]nder Iowa’s current preservation
structure, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.” Under
section 814.7, a court does not have authority to address a claim of ineffective
assistance in a direct appeal. State v. Rutherford, 997 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Iowa
2023).
Ruppe asserts the issue could be addressed under the plain error rule. The
Iowa Supreme Court has rejected the use of the plain error rule in Iowa. State v.
Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain
error rule in Iowa, have been persistent in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to
yield on this point.”); accord State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021)
(“We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.”). We 5
are not at liberty to overrule supreme court precedent. Bomgaars v. State, 967
N.W.2d 41, 48 n.4 (Iowa 2021). We do not address in this direct appeal Ruppe’s
claims regarding whether the verdict was given by a unanimous jury.
III. Venue
Ruppe asserts the State did not adequately show the offenses occurred in
Pottawattamie County.1 “Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed for
corrections of errors at law.” State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293, 298 (Iowa 2019).
In general, “[a] criminal action shall be tried in the county in which the crime
is committed.” Iowa Code § 803.2(1). Additionally, “[a]ll objections to venue are
waived by a defendant unless the defendant objects thereto and secures a ruling
by the trial court on a pretrial motion for change of venue.” Id. § 803.2(3). Ruppe
did not object to the venue in Pottawattamie County prior to the trial and, therefore,
any objections on this issue have been waived. See State v. Sierra-Rojas, No. 18-
0492, 2019 WL 480103, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019). Because Ruppe has
waived the issue of venue, we do not further address this matter.
IV. Motion for New Trial
Ruppe contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence. He claims the State did not prove he acted without justification. He
1 The venue for a trial is a nonjurisdictional issue. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1994). Venue deals with convenience and location of the trial rather than the power of the court to decide an issue on its merits. A defendant must secure a ruling by the trial court before trial or the venue issue is waived. The State has the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. (citations omitted). 6
points out Walker testified Ruppe rushed at him with a knife in his hand and Walker
“immediately grabbed the knife.” Ruppe asserts Walker’s testimony supports his
defense of justification.
A district court ruling on a motion for new trial on the grounds the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State
v. Krogmann, 998 N.W.2d 141, 150 (Iowa 2023). “Our review is not to determine
whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence but only to determine
whether the district court abused its considerable discretion in denying the motion.”
State v. Stendrup, 983 N.W.2d 231, 246 (Iowa 2022). “This is a deferential
standard, and we will not reverse the district court’s ruling absent a ‘clear and
manifest abuse of discretion.’” Id. (quoting State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180,
216 (Iowa 2013)).
The district court ruled, “the evidence in this case was overwhelming, and
the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Ruppe admitted he
slashed the tires of Walker’s work van. He admitted he and Walker fought while
Ruppe was armed with a knife. Walker sustained several lacerations. Events
preceding and following the attack are captured by a video from a Ring doorbell,
and the audio includes incriminating statements of the defendant threatening
Walker. We determine the district court’s ruling was not a manifest abuse of
discretion.
We affirm Ruppe’s convictions.
AFFIRMED.