from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L.
Randolph appeals his conviction for perjury, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
D. Primmer of Chad Douglas Primmer, P.C., Council Bluffs, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin Cmelik, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Randolph was involved in an altercation with his nephew,
Roderick Banks. He told police Banks pulled a gun on him. At
Banks' trial on charges of assault and felon in
possession of a firearm, Randolph backtracked and, testifying
for the defense, stated Banks never had a gun.
State charged Randolph with perjury. See Iowa Code
§ 720.2 (2015). A jury found him guilty. On appeal,
Randolph challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting the jury's finding of guilt. He acknowledges
his statements to police and his statements at Banks'
trial were "inconsistent" but contends he
"gave a plausible explanation" for the
contradictory statements. We will not disturb a jury finding
of guilt "if there is substantial evidence to support
the finding." See State v. Robinson,
859 N.W.2d 464, 467 (Iowa 2015).
jury was instructed the State would have to prove the
following elements of perjury:
1. On or about the 3rd day of December, 2014, the defendant
was under oath.
2. The oath was made in trial in State v.
Roderick Banks, Woodbury County criminal number
3. a. The defendant made statements of material fact,
specifically that Roderick Banks did not possess a gun in
Jamal Randolph's apartment on August 21, 2014: and/or
b. The defendant made denials of certain material facts,
specifically Jamal Randolph denied even seeing a gun in his
apartment on August 21, 2014.
4. a. The statements were false when they were made. b.
denials of the facts were false ...