State of Iowa v. Vincent Salvatory Brocato

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-0572
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0572 Filed June 7, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

VINCENT SALVATORY BROCATO, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea,

Judge.

Vincent Brocato appeals his convictions for attempted murder and domestic

abuse assault while using a dangerous weapon. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023). 2

AHLERS, Presiding Judge.

A jury convicted Vincent Brocato of attempted murder and domestic abuse

assault while using a dangerous weapon for the shooting of Erica.1 Erica had been

staying with Brocato, and the two had a sexual relationship. Their relationship

eventually soured, and Erica was in the process of moving out on the night of the

shooting.

On appeal, Brocato challenges his convictions by claiming the State failed

to establish sufficient evidence identifying him as the shooter. We review

challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for corrections of errors at law. State

v. Hall, 969 N.W.2d 299, 304 (Iowa 2022). Evidence is sufficient if there is

substantial evidence in the record to support the conviction. Id. Evidence is

substantial if it is sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that the defendant is

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence,

we view it in the light most favorable to the State. Id.

Key to Brocato’s appellate argument is his suggestion that we should

independently weigh the evidence and make our own credibility determinations to

tip the scales in his favor. But that is not our role on appellate review. “Appellate

review of the jury’s verdict is not the trial redux.” State v. Mathis, 971 N.W.2d 514,

519 (Iowa 2022). “It is not the province of the court . . . to resolve conflicts in the

evidence, 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.

1 The shooting victim’s name is not Erica. To protect the privacy of the victim, we used a random-name generator, which yielded the name Erica that we will use to refer to the victim throughout this opinion. 3

Musser, 721 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d

23, 28 (Iowa 2005)).

Our review of the record evidence, in the light most favorable to the jury

verdict, reveals the following facts.2 Text messages between Brocato and a friend

exchanged a little over two weeks prior to the shooting establish Brocato was angry

with Erica. One text message stated, “That bitch made a fool out of me and took

a lot of my shit.” Brocato’s text messages continued. He told his friend, “I need a

pistol.” He reassured his friend, “If you don’t want to get involved I understand but

I also know that that’s your friend but everybody needs to understand I’ll fucking

smoke that bitch I’ll cut that bitch to fucking pieces.” The friend did not provide

Brocato with a gun at that time.

On the night of the shooting, however, Brocato’s friend brought Brocato a

handgun because Brocato told him he needed it to scare away a man who had

been bothering an ex-girlfriend. The friend visited with Brocato for about an hour

and then left, leaving the gun with Brocato. Later testing revealed that the gun was

used to shoot Erica in the head.

After receiving the handgun, Brocato received a text message informing him

that Erica was at Brocato’s upstairs neighbor’s apartment. Brocato went to the

neighbor’s apartment, talked to Erica, and the two went downstairs. About ten

minutes later, Brocato returned to the neighbor’s apartment alone, and Brocato

was agitated. After Brocato left the upstairs neighbor’s apartment, the friend who

had brought Brocato the gun returned to Brocato’s apartment. He found Brocato

2 Erica did not testify because her head and brain injuries from the shooting prevented her from being able to communicate enough to testify. 4

waiting for him outside to return the gun to him. At the same time, Brocato also

gave him Erica’s cell phone, which the friend then sold at a kiosk.

Brocato went to speak to police the night of the shooting and, while crying,

told them they were going to take him into custody because he thought he did

something. Officers went to his apartment to investigate but left when no one

answered the door. Brocato eventually went with police to his apartment and

unlocked it for them. Once inside the apartment’s entryway, Brocato quickly told

an officer to “look” and pointed toward another room where police would find Erica

suffering from a gunshot wound to the head.

A few days after the shooting, Brocato was in jail and spoke to his mother

on the jail telephone. The conversation was recorded. During the phone call,

Brocato informed his mother that he was the only one in the apartment with Erica.

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, it is sufficient

for a jury to identify Brocato as Erica’s assailant. Brocato was angry with Erica for

several reasons as expressed in his text messages—explaining Brocato’s motive

to harm Erica. See State v. Richards, 809 N.W.2d 80, 94 (Iowa 2012) (recognizing

a person’s motive to commit an offense is probative to identity). He had access to

the handgun used to shoot Erica, which he got rid of shortly after the shooting by

returning it to his friend. He steered the friend away from entering his apartment

and finding an injured Erica by meeting him outside in the frigid February weather3

instead of inviting him inside or meeting him at the door. He gave Erica’s phone

away to the friend, possibly in an effort to manipulate Erica’s digital footprint and

3 The evidence was consistent that it was a very cold day, with one witness testifying that it was thirty degrees below zero. 5

timeline to make it appear she left his apartment at that point. His conduct while

interacting with police incriminated him as well. As he cried, he told officers he

thought he did something bad. Then, he indicated to officers that he knew Erica

was injured by pointing into the apartment and saying “look” in an emotional tone

before Erica was even visible from his vantage point. A reasonable jury could

conclude that Brocato would not have known about Erica in the other room at that

point unless he was the one who shot her. And, finally, he admitted to his mother

that he was the only one in the apartment with Erica.

The pieces of this puzzle fit together such that a reasonable jury could

conclude that Brocato felt slighted and disrespected by Erica, so he got a gun, shot

her, and then feigned surprise and horror at the discovery of her injuries in an

attempt to convince officers he was not her assailant. The State provided the jury

with substantial evidence to piece the puzzle together to conclude Brocato was the

shooter and reject Brocato’s claim that he was not. So, Brocato’s convictions are

supported by substantial evidence, and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.