State of Iowa v. Raymond Lee Edwards Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 25, 2023
• Docket: 22-0206
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0206 Filed January 25, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RAYMOND LEE EDWARDS JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M. Wright,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his conviction for possession of contraband in a county

jail. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ. 2

GREER, Judge.

Raymond Edwards Jr. was convicted of possessing contraband in a county

jail, a class “C” felony. See Iowa Code §§ 719.7(3)(c), 719.7(4)(a) (2021). On

appeal, he argues his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence that he

possessed either a dangerous weapon or an object fashioned in such a manner

as to be capable of inflicting death or injury. Because there was substantial

evidence that he fashioned tin foil into an object capable of inflicting physical pain,

and therefore injury, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.

After dinner on May 4, 2021, correctional officers in the Des Moines County

Jail received a handwritten note from an inmate threatening another inmate.1 The

correctional officers began investigating the circumstances surrounding the

animosity, and Edwards admitted to writing the note; he also told officers that if

nothing happened, he would take things into his own hands because he didn’t feel

safe. The correctional officers were told that Edwards had potential weapons in

his cell. Inside the pages of a book, Correctional Officer Dakota Day found tin foil

from the lid or lids of an applesauce container, which had been folded to create a

pointed end.2 Both the recovered object and a photo of it were admitted at trial as

exhibits; we include the photo for reference:

1 The note, submitted into evidence at trial, said “The next time [the other inmate] in cell F2C comes out his cell, his life can end, he should be moved immediately!” 2 Correctional officers also found a bolt and washer, which were initially included

in Edwards’s charges. But, after the State rested its case-in-chief, Edwards moved for judgment of acquittal, which was granted as to the bolt. 3

Correctional Officer Day testified at trial that he tested the rigidity of the tin

foil object. That test convinced him that, with enough blunt force, the object “could

definitely do some damage” and could “puncture skin.” He further explained that

the object “had a sharp, pointed edge, similar or consistent to many of the shanks [3]

[he has] seen.”

Deputy Sheriff Eric Blodgett4 interviewed Edwards, who explained he had

folded the tin foil5 to use as a bookmark and to clean out his ears. Edwards also

told Deputy Blodgett he wrote the threatening note because the other inmate was

harassing him. When asked, Deputy Blodgett stated, “I poked [the tin foil] into my

own skin to see how the tip on it was, but I didn’t want to change the structure of

the item.” Deputy Blodgett opined that the applesauce container lid was formed

into a “pointed weapon” with a “spear-like tip” that “could cause injury to [a] person.”

The jury ultimately found Edwards guilty. He was sentenced to ten years in

prison, but the sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised

probation for five years. He now appeals.

3 A “shank” is “an often homemade knife.” Shank, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shank (last visited Jan. 5, 2023). 4 Deputy Blodgett testified he was trained in how to identify weapons. 5 The tin foil object was preserved as it was found, so it is unclear exactly how

many lids were used. 4

II. Analysis.

Edwards argues his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence

because there was no evidence that the tin foil was (a) a dangerous weapon or

(b) fashioned in such a manner as to be capable of inflicting death or injury.6 We

evaluate a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge for correction of errors at law.

State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). We give great deference to

the jury’s verdict and uphold it if substantial evidence supports it; “[s]ubstantial

evidence is evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. “[W]e 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. (citation

omitted).

The State was required to prove that Edwards, “[w]hile confined in the Des

Moines County Jail . . . knowingly made, obtained or possessed . . . a dangerous

weapon, or . . . other material fashioned in such a manner as to be capable of

inflicting death or injury.”7 “Injury” was then defined as “physical pain, illness or

any impairment of physical condition.”

“Injury,” as defined for the jury, does not require anything more than physical

pain; this is a relatively low threshold. With testimony from Deputy Blodgett that

the object could cause injury, as well as the testimony from Correctional Officer

Day about the rigidity of the tin foil, that it could puncture skin, and that it was

6Edwards does not challenge any other element of the crime charged. 7“Where, as here, the jury was instructed without objection, the jury instruction becomes law of the case for the purposes of reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence.” State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018). 5

similar to other shanks he has seen, the jury could find that the object was capable

of causing physical pain and, therefore, injury. So, taking the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State, there was sufficient evidence that Edwards fashioned

the material in such a matter that it was capable of inflicting injury.

III. Conclusion.

Because Edwards’s conviction was supported by substantial evidence, we

uphold his conviction.

AFFIRMED.