IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1406 Filed September 4, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
R.D. NICOLAISEN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy,
Judge.
R.D. Nicolaisen appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury and
domestic abuse assault. AFFIRMED.
Karmen Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
R.D. Nicolaisen appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury
causing bodily injury and domestic abuse assault second offense after assaulting
his parents. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for willful injury, contending the State failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he intended to cause serious injury. He also argues the trial
court abused its discretion by denying probation and sentencing him to prison.
Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the district court
acted within its sentencing discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In early 2024, Nicolaisen was living with his parents in their home. On
March 9, 2024, he drank alcoholic beverages at a friend’s house. Eventually,
Nicolaisen called his mother to come pick him up. When they got home, Nicolaisen
laid on the kitchen floor while his mother made dinner. Per her testimony, he was
“out of his mind drunk.” Eventually, Nicolaisen got up from the floor and went to
the bathroom. When he exited the bathroom, without apparent provocation, he
threw a flashlight against the wall.
Nicolaisen then followed his mother into her bedroom where she had gone
to eat dinner, and he again laid on the floor. At some point Nicolaisen started
“grabbing at stuff,” causing his mother to call his father into the room for help. Once
the situation was calm, Nicolaisen’s father left the bedroom to go back to the living
room. Then, Nicolaisen got up from the floor and began punching his mother in
the head with closed fists, causing a cut to her forehead. That cut to her forehead
resulted in scarring. 3
Nicolaisen then left the bedroom and began to fight his father, punching him
in the face. His father wrestled him to the ground, and his mother attempted to
restrain Nicolaisen. Despite these efforts, Nicolaisen continued to attack his
parents by punching them with closed fists. Eventually, Nicolaisen left the house,
and his parents called 911.
Dallas County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the home. Upon arrival, they
found Nicolaisen’s father with a bloodied face and his mother with a cut on her
forehead, scrapes on her head, and “lumps” on the back of her head. Deputies
then found Nicolaisen at the neighbor’s house and arrested him.
Nicolaisen was charged with willful injury causing serious injury in violation
of Iowa Code section 708.4(1) (2024) and domestic abuse assault causing bodily
injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(a). At trial Nicolaisen testified in
his own defense. He described grabbing a metal cup his mother was drinking
from, intending to throw the drink in her face, but the cup slipped from his hand
and struck her. Further, he admitted to having an altercation with his father.
The jury found Nicolaisen guilty of the lesser-included offense of willful injury
causing bodily injury and the charged offense of domestic abuse assault. The
district court imposed sentences of incarceration not to exceed five years for willful
injury causing bodily injury and not to exceed two years for domestic abuse assault
causing bodily injury, second offense. Nicolaisen now appeals. 4
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Nicolaisen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for willful injury causing bodily injury.1 Iowa Code § 708.4(2). We review
sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law. State v.
Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). “In conducting that review, we are
highly deferential to the jury’s verdict,” viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State and upholding the verdict if 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.
To convict Nicolaisen of willful injury causing bodily injury, the State had to
prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. On or about March 9, 2024, RD Nicolaisen struck [his mother]. 2. RD Nicolaisen specifically intended to cause a serious injury . . . to [his mother]. 3. RD Nicolaisen’s acts caused a serious injury or bodily injury . . . to [his mother].
The court instructed the jury that “serious injury” means “a disabling mental illness;
a condition which cripples, incapacitates, weakens or destroys a person’s normal
mental functions; or bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which
causes serious permanent disfigurement or extended loss or impairment of the
1 Within his sufficiency of the evidence challenge Nicolaisen attempts to raise a
prosecutorial misconduct claim. Nicolaisen never objected or moved for a mistrial below, failing to preserve error on the issue. See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (“[The defendant] cannot obtain a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct when he failed to move for a mistrial at the time.”); State v. Farnsworth, No. 13-0401, 2014 WL 2884732, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 25, 2014) (“By not objecting or otherwise alleging prosecutorial misconduct at the time of trial, [the defendant] failed to preserve error.”). Because the issue was not preserved below, we do not address the claim here. 5
function of any bodily part or organ.” It also instructed the jury that it may “conclude
a person intends the natural results of his acts.”
Nicolaisen alleges insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that he
acted with intent to cause serious injury. Specifically, he claims there is insufficient
evidence he possessed the intent to inflict serious injury because no serious injury
resulted. But the State is not required to prove a victim suffered serious injury to
prove the defendant had the intent to inflict serious injury. State v. Taylor, 538
N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa Ct. App.1995) (requiring proof the defendant intended
serious injury and had the ability to inflict it).
The State offered evidence showing that Nicolaisen punched his mother
several times in the head, causing a cut to her forehead, scratches, and lumps to
the back of her head. The jury heard that EMTs advised Nicolaisen’s mother that
her cut needed stitches. The jury also saw photos of the bleeding cut. From the
number of her injuries, the jury could conclude Nicolaisen intended to inflict serious
injury.
Nicolaisen testified in his own defense, claiming he grabbed a metal cup his
mother was drinking from, intending to throw the drink in her face.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-1406 Filed September 4, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
R.D. NICOLAISEN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy,
Judge.
R.D. Nicolaisen appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury and
domestic abuse assault. AFFIRMED.
Karmen Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Badding and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
R.D. Nicolaisen appeals his convictions and sentences for willful injury
causing bodily injury and domestic abuse assault second offense after assaulting
his parents. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for willful injury, contending the State failed to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he intended to cause serious injury. He also argues the trial
court abused its discretion by denying probation and sentencing him to prison.
Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the district court
acted within its sentencing discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In early 2024, Nicolaisen was living with his parents in their home. On
March 9, 2024, he drank alcoholic beverages at a friend’s house. Eventually,
Nicolaisen called his mother to come pick him up. When they got home, Nicolaisen
laid on the kitchen floor while his mother made dinner. Per her testimony, he was
“out of his mind drunk.” Eventually, Nicolaisen got up from the floor and went to
the bathroom. When he exited the bathroom, without apparent provocation, he
threw a flashlight against the wall.
Nicolaisen then followed his mother into her bedroom where she had gone
to eat dinner, and he again laid on the floor. At some point Nicolaisen started
“grabbing at stuff,” causing his mother to call his father into the room for help. Once
the situation was calm, Nicolaisen’s father left the bedroom to go back to the living
room. Then, Nicolaisen got up from the floor and began punching his mother in
the head with closed fists, causing a cut to her forehead. That cut to her forehead
resulted in scarring. 3
Nicolaisen then left the bedroom and began to fight his father, punching him
in the face. His father wrestled him to the ground, and his mother attempted to
restrain Nicolaisen. Despite these efforts, Nicolaisen continued to attack his
parents by punching them with closed fists. Eventually, Nicolaisen left the house,
and his parents called 911.
Dallas County Sheriff’s deputies responded to the home. Upon arrival, they
found Nicolaisen’s father with a bloodied face and his mother with a cut on her
forehead, scrapes on her head, and “lumps” on the back of her head. Deputies
then found Nicolaisen at the neighbor’s house and arrested him.
Nicolaisen was charged with willful injury causing serious injury in violation
of Iowa Code section 708.4(1) (2024) and domestic abuse assault causing bodily
injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(a). At trial Nicolaisen testified in
his own defense. He described grabbing a metal cup his mother was drinking
from, intending to throw the drink in her face, but the cup slipped from his hand
and struck her. Further, he admitted to having an altercation with his father.
The jury found Nicolaisen guilty of the lesser-included offense of willful injury
causing bodily injury and the charged offense of domestic abuse assault. The
district court imposed sentences of incarceration not to exceed five years for willful
injury causing bodily injury and not to exceed two years for domestic abuse assault
causing bodily injury, second offense. Nicolaisen now appeals. 4
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Nicolaisen challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction for willful injury causing bodily injury.1 Iowa Code § 708.4(2). We review
sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law. State v.
Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022). “In conducting that review, we are
highly deferential to the jury’s verdict,” viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State and upholding the verdict if 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.
To convict Nicolaisen of willful injury causing bodily injury, the State had to
prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. On or about March 9, 2024, RD Nicolaisen struck [his mother]. 2. RD Nicolaisen specifically intended to cause a serious injury . . . to [his mother]. 3. RD Nicolaisen’s acts caused a serious injury or bodily injury . . . to [his mother].
The court instructed the jury that “serious injury” means “a disabling mental illness;
a condition which cripples, incapacitates, weakens or destroys a person’s normal
mental functions; or bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which
causes serious permanent disfigurement or extended loss or impairment of the
1 Within his sufficiency of the evidence challenge Nicolaisen attempts to raise a
prosecutorial misconduct claim. Nicolaisen never objected or moved for a mistrial below, failing to preserve error on the issue. See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (“[The defendant] cannot obtain a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct when he failed to move for a mistrial at the time.”); State v. Farnsworth, No. 13-0401, 2014 WL 2884732, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. June 25, 2014) (“By not objecting or otherwise alleging prosecutorial misconduct at the time of trial, [the defendant] failed to preserve error.”). Because the issue was not preserved below, we do not address the claim here. 5
function of any bodily part or organ.” It also instructed the jury that it may “conclude
a person intends the natural results of his acts.”
Nicolaisen alleges insufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding that he
acted with intent to cause serious injury. Specifically, he claims there is insufficient
evidence he possessed the intent to inflict serious injury because no serious injury
resulted. But the State is not required to prove a victim suffered serious injury to
prove the defendant had the intent to inflict serious injury. State v. Taylor, 538
N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa Ct. App.1995) (requiring proof the defendant intended
serious injury and had the ability to inflict it).
The State offered evidence showing that Nicolaisen punched his mother
several times in the head, causing a cut to her forehead, scratches, and lumps to
the back of her head. The jury heard that EMTs advised Nicolaisen’s mother that
her cut needed stitches. The jury also saw photos of the bleeding cut. From the
number of her injuries, the jury could conclude Nicolaisen intended to inflict serious
injury.
Nicolaisen testified in his own defense, claiming he grabbed a metal cup his
mother was drinking from, intending to throw the drink in her face. He urged that
he injured his mother when the cup slipped from his hand and struck her. But the
jury was free to reject his version of events. See State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336,
343 (Iowa 2021) (holding a jury is “not required to accept the defendant’s version
of the events” (citation omitted)). It is not our role on appeal “to pass upon the
credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh
the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28
(Iowa 2005) (citation omitted). Instead, we view the “evidence in the light most 6
favorable to the State, including all legitimate inferences and presumptions that
may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.” Id. at 27 (citation
omitted).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we find
substantial evidence in the record that could convince a rational trier of fact beyond
a reasonable doubt that Nicolaisen acted with intent to inflict a serious injury. See
Jones, 967 N.W.2d at 339.
III. Sentencing
Finally, Nicolaisen challenges the district court’s rejection of his request for
probation and imposition of concurrent prison sentences. We review the
sentencing order in a criminal case for correction of errors at law. State v. Damme,
944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020). We will not reverse the decision of the district
court absent “an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.”
Id. (quoting State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002)). An abuse of
discretion occurs when “the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or for
reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” State v. Gordon, 921
N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018).
When sentencing a criminal defendant, a court “should weigh and consider
all pertinent matters . . . , including the nature of the offense, the attending
circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities, and chances of his
reform.” State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2019) (cleaned up).
Upon our review, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court. The
record reflects that the district court “considered all pertinent matters and
addressed both protection of the community and rehabilitation.” See State v. 7
Peterson, No. 24-0194, 2025 WL 271623, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2025).
Specifically, the district court considered the “protection of the community from
further offenses” and provided “the sentence that gives [Nicolaisen] the maximum
opportunity to be rehabilitated.” Additionally, the district court gave the necessary
weight to Nicolaisen’s age, prior criminal history, and family circumstances.
Nicolaisen argues the district court should have adopted the presentence
investigation report’s (PSI) recommendations and sentenced him to a suspended
sentence with probation. There are two problems with this argument. First, the
district court is not required to adopt the PSI recommendations. See Headley, 926
N.W.2d at 552. Second, the district court carefully considered all the sentencing
factors when determining Nicolaisen’s sentence. We already found the district
court did not consider any improper factors in exercising its discretion, and there
is no error just because the district court imposed a sentence Nicolaisen disagrees
with. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725.
Because we find no evidence that the court relied on impermissible factors
or otherwise abused its discretion, we find Nicolaisen’s argument without merit.
State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355–56 (Iowa 2022).
IV. Disposition
Because we find substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict and the
district court acted within its discretion in fashioning Nicolaisen’s sentences, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.