from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
defendant appeals his convictions for four counts of
first-degree robbery and two counts of attempted murder
following a jury trial.
C. Smith, Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary C. Miller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by: Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
of individuals committed four robberies in Sioux City. Shots
were fired during one of the four robberies, and a police
officer involved in apprehending suspects was shot following
the fourth robbery.
State charged Isaiah Thomas Paul Mothershed with several
crimes. A jury found him guilty of four counts of
first-degree robbery and two counts of attempted murder. On
appeal, Mothershed contends (1) insufficient evidence
supported the finding of guilt on one of the attempted murder
counts and (2) his trial attorney was ineffective in failing
to seek severance of the four robbery counts.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
jury was instructed the State would have to prove the
following elements on the first count of attempted murder:
(1) On or about February 5, 2016, in Woodburry County Iowa,
Isaiah Mothershed fired or discharged a firearm, (2) By this
action, Isaiah Mothershed expected to set in motion a force
or chain of events which would cause or result in the death
of Andrea Mann, and (3) When he discharged the firearm,
Isaiah Mothershed had the specific intent to cause the death
of Andrea Mann.
challenges the evidence supporting the third, specific intent
element. He argues "the evidence at most shows that [he]
merely wanted to scare [Ms. Mann], " "[t]here was
no indication of how close she really was to getting hit,
" and "testimony from [an accomplice] further
suggests [he] did not intend to cause [Ms. Mann's]
intent was defined for the jury as "not only being aware
of doing an act and doing it voluntarily; but, in addition,
doing it with a specific purpose in mind." The jury was
Because determining a person's specific intent requires
you to decide what he or she was thinking when an act was
done, it is seldom capable of direct proof. Therefore, you
should consider the facts and circumstances surrounding the
act to determine the person's specific intent. You may,
but are not ...