IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0817 Filed July 23, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
OLEN JAMES BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk Daily, Judge.
Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing
bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.
Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell & Goedken, P.C., Ottumwa, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and
Bower, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
BOWER, Senior Judge.
Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing
bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury, challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claiming he was
deprived of a fair and impartial jury. We affirm, finding substantial evidence
supports his verdicts and his juror challenge was not preserved.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On November 12, 2023, Brown went to the Ottumwa police station to report
his brother missing. He approached Sergeant Devin Yeager as he exited his
marked police vehicle in the station’s parking lot. Yeager explained Brown’s
brother was safe and then told Brown he had a warrant and Yeager was detaining
him. Yeager had seen Brown’s name on the list of people with current arrest
warrants and on a police station display of active arrest warrants with photos.
Yeager radioed Brown’s information through the dispatch center to verify the
warrant.
Brown told Yeager he did not have a warrant and started to walk away.
Yeager told him to stop as he was not free to leave. When Brown backed away,
Yeager grabbed Brown’s arm, which Brown pulled away, then grabbed Brown’s
shirt or jacket. Brown responded by punching Yeager just under his left eye.
Yeager backed away, drew his taser, and told Brown he was under arrest. Brown
was not compliant with commands to get on the ground, so Yeager tased him.
A surveillance camera captured video of the altercation. Brown can be seen
approaching Yeager’s vehicle and speaking with him about something. Brown
starts to walk away, with Yeager following. Brown continues to back away with 3
Yeager in pursuit. Yeager can be seen trying to grab Brown’s shirt, Brown hitting
Yeager’s arm and swinging at his face.
As a result of Brown’s punch, Yeager’s left eye swelled, and he “had zero
vision out of [that] eye.” Photos taken shortly after the altercation show Yeager’s
swollen eye with significant bruising along the bottom and a red mark on his cheek
below the bruising.
After Brown’s arrest, Yeager discovered Brown was correct: the warrant for
his arrest had been recalled a few days earlier. According to Yeager, after the
incident he received letters sent by Brown apologizing for punching him in the face.
At the conclusion of the evidence but before submission to the jury, Brown
moved for a directed verdict dismissing all charges; the court denied the motion,
finding a jury question existed on each charge. The jury found Brown guilty of
assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury and interference with official acts
resulting in bodily injury. The jury found him not guilty of an additional charge of
possession of marijuana. Brown appeals.
II. Analysis
First, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the district
court should have dismissed his case. Brown also claims a juror should have been
removed during voir dire, depriving him of a fair and impartial jury.
A. Sufficiency of Evidence. Brown challenges the sufficiency of
evidence to support his convictions. 1 We review challenges to the sufficiency of
1 Although trial counsel asked the court to dismiss the charges—and appellate
counsel follows suit calling it a motion to dismiss—the trial court termed it a motion for directed verdict, which we treat it as a motion for judgment of acquittal, rather than the procedurally distinct motion to dismiss. See Iowa Rs. Crim. 4
evidence for correction of errors at law. State v. Cook, 996 N.W.2d 703, 708
(Iowa 2023). We uphold the jury’s verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence
when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
Brown argues he was not under arrest at the time, there was no valid arrest
warrant against him, he “defended himself from the miscarriage of justice,” and he
“did not cause a bodily injury or mental illness to Sergeant Yeager.” These broad
statements are not further explained or addressed beyond terming the proof
“severely lacking.”
With the assault charge, State had to prove Brown committed an assault on
Yeager, Yeager was a peace officer, and Brown’s action caused bodily injury to
Yeager. Yeager testified Brown struck him, corroborated by the surveillance video;
Brown makes no argument this did not constitute an assault. It was not contested
Yeager was a peace officer at the time. Further, Yeager testified his eye hurt and
provided photos of his swollen, bruised eye following the assault—this falls within
the definition of bodily injury provided to the jury: “physical pain, illness or any
impairment of physical condition.” Substantial evidence supports the conviction of
Brown for assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury.
For interference with official acts, the State had to prove Brown knew
Yeager was a peace officer, knew Yeager was performing within the scope of his
duties, resisted or obstructed those duties, and inflicted a bodily injury on Yeager.
Brown approached Yeager—who was in uniform—as he exited his marked police
P. 2.11(8), 2.19(7); State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 249 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). Regardless, after a trial and verdict we can review “any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raised on direct appeal.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). 5
vehicle, proving he knew Yeager was a peace officer. And Yeager was acting
within the scope of his duties to check on Brown’s warrant status. When Yeager
told him he was being detained on a warrant, Brown said “no” and started walking
away while Yeager radioed dispatch. While Brown knew his warrant status had
cleared, he resisted compliance with the warrant check, including backing away
and striking Yeager when Yeager tried to prevent his departure. The strike
resulted in bodily injury to Yeager by causing pain and resulting in a bruised and
swollen eye. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict on the interference
with official acts resulting in bodily injury.
B. Fair and Impartial Jury. Next, Brown argues a juror should have
been struck for cause during voir dire. The source of his claim was the following
exchange between the prospective juror and his counsel:
JUROR: I kind of believe you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence. COUNSEL: That’s not true. You know that, don’t you? I don’t have to prove Mr. Brown innocent. The State has to prove him guilty.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0817 Filed July 23, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
OLEN JAMES BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk Daily, Judge.
Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing
bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.
Ryan J. Mitchell of Orsborn, Mitchell & Goedken, P.C., Ottumwa, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and
Bower, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
BOWER, Senior Judge.
Olen Brown appeals his convictions for assault on a peace officer causing
bodily injury and interference with official acts causing bodily injury, challenging
the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and claiming he was
deprived of a fair and impartial jury. We affirm, finding substantial evidence
supports his verdicts and his juror challenge was not preserved.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On November 12, 2023, Brown went to the Ottumwa police station to report
his brother missing. He approached Sergeant Devin Yeager as he exited his
marked police vehicle in the station’s parking lot. Yeager explained Brown’s
brother was safe and then told Brown he had a warrant and Yeager was detaining
him. Yeager had seen Brown’s name on the list of people with current arrest
warrants and on a police station display of active arrest warrants with photos.
Yeager radioed Brown’s information through the dispatch center to verify the
warrant.
Brown told Yeager he did not have a warrant and started to walk away.
Yeager told him to stop as he was not free to leave. When Brown backed away,
Yeager grabbed Brown’s arm, which Brown pulled away, then grabbed Brown’s
shirt or jacket. Brown responded by punching Yeager just under his left eye.
Yeager backed away, drew his taser, and told Brown he was under arrest. Brown
was not compliant with commands to get on the ground, so Yeager tased him.
A surveillance camera captured video of the altercation. Brown can be seen
approaching Yeager’s vehicle and speaking with him about something. Brown
starts to walk away, with Yeager following. Brown continues to back away with 3
Yeager in pursuit. Yeager can be seen trying to grab Brown’s shirt, Brown hitting
Yeager’s arm and swinging at his face.
As a result of Brown’s punch, Yeager’s left eye swelled, and he “had zero
vision out of [that] eye.” Photos taken shortly after the altercation show Yeager’s
swollen eye with significant bruising along the bottom and a red mark on his cheek
below the bruising.
After Brown’s arrest, Yeager discovered Brown was correct: the warrant for
his arrest had been recalled a few days earlier. According to Yeager, after the
incident he received letters sent by Brown apologizing for punching him in the face.
At the conclusion of the evidence but before submission to the jury, Brown
moved for a directed verdict dismissing all charges; the court denied the motion,
finding a jury question existed on each charge. The jury found Brown guilty of
assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury and interference with official acts
resulting in bodily injury. The jury found him not guilty of an additional charge of
possession of marijuana. Brown appeals.
II. Analysis
First, Brown challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the district
court should have dismissed his case. Brown also claims a juror should have been
removed during voir dire, depriving him of a fair and impartial jury.
A. Sufficiency of Evidence. Brown challenges the sufficiency of
evidence to support his convictions. 1 We review challenges to the sufficiency of
1 Although trial counsel asked the court to dismiss the charges—and appellate
counsel follows suit calling it a motion to dismiss—the trial court termed it a motion for directed verdict, which we treat it as a motion for judgment of acquittal, rather than the procedurally distinct motion to dismiss. See Iowa Rs. Crim. 4
evidence for correction of errors at law. State v. Cook, 996 N.W.2d 703, 708
(Iowa 2023). We uphold the jury’s verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence
when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
Brown argues he was not under arrest at the time, there was no valid arrest
warrant against him, he “defended himself from the miscarriage of justice,” and he
“did not cause a bodily injury or mental illness to Sergeant Yeager.” These broad
statements are not further explained or addressed beyond terming the proof
“severely lacking.”
With the assault charge, State had to prove Brown committed an assault on
Yeager, Yeager was a peace officer, and Brown’s action caused bodily injury to
Yeager. Yeager testified Brown struck him, corroborated by the surveillance video;
Brown makes no argument this did not constitute an assault. It was not contested
Yeager was a peace officer at the time. Further, Yeager testified his eye hurt and
provided photos of his swollen, bruised eye following the assault—this falls within
the definition of bodily injury provided to the jury: “physical pain, illness or any
impairment of physical condition.” Substantial evidence supports the conviction of
Brown for assault on a peace officer causing bodily injury.
For interference with official acts, the State had to prove Brown knew
Yeager was a peace officer, knew Yeager was performing within the scope of his
duties, resisted or obstructed those duties, and inflicted a bodily injury on Yeager.
Brown approached Yeager—who was in uniform—as he exited his marked police
P. 2.11(8), 2.19(7); State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 249 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). Regardless, after a trial and verdict we can review “any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raised on direct appeal.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). 5
vehicle, proving he knew Yeager was a peace officer. And Yeager was acting
within the scope of his duties to check on Brown’s warrant status. When Yeager
told him he was being detained on a warrant, Brown said “no” and started walking
away while Yeager radioed dispatch. While Brown knew his warrant status had
cleared, he resisted compliance with the warrant check, including backing away
and striking Yeager when Yeager tried to prevent his departure. The strike
resulted in bodily injury to Yeager by causing pain and resulting in a bruised and
swollen eye. Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict on the interference
with official acts resulting in bodily injury.
B. Fair and Impartial Jury. Next, Brown argues a juror should have
been struck for cause during voir dire. The source of his claim was the following
exchange between the prospective juror and his counsel:
JUROR: I kind of believe you’re guilty and you have to prove your innocence. COUNSEL: That’s not true. You know that, don’t you? I don’t have to prove Mr. Brown innocent. The State has to prove him guilty. JUROR: I do know that’s true. COUNSEL: But you think it’s the other way? JUROR: Uh-huh.
Counsel did not ask the court to strike for cause at that time, and later “pass[ed]
the jury for cause.”
Brown asserts error was preserved on this issue by filing his notice of
appeal. This is not sufficient. Our appellate rules specifically provide “Filing a
notice of appeal does not preserve an issue for appeal.” Iowa R. App.
P. 6.903(2)(a)(8)(1). The statement must address “how the issue was
preserved . . . with references to the places in the record where the issue was
raised and decided in the district court.” Id. “[I]ssues must ordinarily be both raised 6
and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” Meier v.
Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
Brown never requested the juror in question be struck before this appeal—
not for cause or through peremptory strikes. Even Brown admits, “At no point did
any party, including the court, dismiss or strike the . . . juror.” And he provides no
reason why no request to strike was made. “[O]ur regular error preservation
rules . . . require parties to alert the district court ‘to an issue at a time when
corrective action can be taken.’” State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 524
(Iowa 2011) (citation omitted). “Even issues implicating constitutional rights must
be presented to and ruled upon by the district court in order to preserve error for
appeal.” Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 309, 322 (Iowa 2013). Defense counsel
must challenge a juror for cause which must be denied to preserve error on appeal
under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5) and (11). Brown failed to do so,
and error was not preserved for our appellate review.
Finding substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdicts and Brown did not
preserve error on his juror challenge, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.