State of Iowa v. Eugene Harris ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-2000
Filed September 11, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EUGENE HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel
(trial) and Henry W. Latham II (sentencing), Judges.
Eugene Harris appeals his conviction for neglect of a dependent person.
AFFIRMED.
Zeke R. McCartney of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
The State charged Eugene Harris with neglect of a dependent person after
police officers discovered his adult stepdaughter, C.D., locked in an upstairs
bedroom.1 The officers found C.D., who is a person with a cognitive disability,
living in deplorable conditions and needing medical treatment. Following trial, a
jury found Harris guilty of neglect of a dependent person.
On appeal, Harris challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction
of errors at law. See State v. Benson, 919 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 2018). We view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and affirm the verdict if
substantial evidence supports it. See id. Substantial evidence is evidence that
could convince a rational factfinder of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.The court instructed the jury to find Harris guilty of neglect of a dependent
person if the State proved these elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. On the 22nd day of May 2018, Eugene Harris was a person
having custody of [C.D].
2. [C.D.] is a person who by reason of mental or physical
disability is not able to care for herself.
3. Eugene Harris, or someone he aided and abetted,
knowingly or recklessly exposed [C.D.] to a hazard or danger against
which [C.D.] could not reasonably be expected to protect herself.
Harris only challenges the evidence showing he was a person having custody of
C.D. See Iowa Code section 726.8 (2018) (stating “the father, mother, or some
other person having custody of a . . . person who by reason of mental or physical
1
The State also charged Harris with dependent adult abuse but dismissed the charge
when the jury could not reach a verdict on that count.
3
disability is not able to care for the person’s self” may commit neglect of a
dependent person).
When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence
supports a finding that C.D. was in Harris’s custody. Because our supreme court
has held that the term “custody” as used in section 726.3 is not limited to legal
custody, State v. Johnson, 528 N.W.2d 638, 642 (Iowa 1995), the fact that Harris
is not C.D.’s father or legal custodian does not decide the issue. Rather, custody
applies “to all situations in which one individual may be charged with the care and
control of another.” Id. at 642. The evidence here shows C.D. had lived in Harris’s
home for almost a year, and Harris admitted that he looked after C.D. and gave
C.D. food and water when his wife was at work. “To be in charge of an individual
and to hold the responsibility to care for that individual is precisely the definition of
custody.” Johnson, 528 N.W.2d at 641.
Harris tries to avoid accountability by claiming his wife’s controlling behavior
took away his power over even his own situation, leaving him to feel like a prisoner
in his own home. Yet the evidence shows Harris had access to a cellphone and
vehicle and could leave the house. His subjective belief that he lacked personal
agency does not negate the evidence that he had custody over C.D.
Because substantial evidence supports Harris’s conviction, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.