Summary
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed Walter Pacheco Belen’s conviction for stalking in violation of a protective order. The court held that denying his last-minute request for a bench trial did not violate his constitutional rights, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial based on the weight of the evidence. The court declined to reach his evidentiary challenges because the relevant arguments were not preserved for appellate review.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court violated Pacheco Belen's constitutional rights by denying his request, made on the first day of trial without the State's consent, to waive a jury trial and proceed with a bench trial.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Pacheco Belen's motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
- Whether Pacheco Belen preserved his challenges to the exclusion of proposed impeachment evidence.
- Whether Pacheco Belen preserved his challenge to allegedly improper opinion testimony by a detective.
Holdings
- A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a jury trial that may be waived, but no constitutional right to a trial by the court. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.17(1) validly requires a jury-trial waiver at least ten days before trial unless the prosecuting attorney consents, so the district court properly denied the request made on the first day of trial without the State's consent.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because it applied the correct weight-of-the-evidence standard, independently considered the evidence and witness credibility, and reasonably concluded that the verdict was not a miscarriage of justice.
- Pacheco Belen did not preserve his additional double-jeopardy and trial-information-amendment arguments because the district court did not rule on those grounds and counsel did not bring them to the court's attention when given an opportunity to do so.
- The evidentiary challenges were not preserved for appellate review because Pacheco Belen did not raise the particular admissibility arguments in the district court and did not object to the detective's testimony as improper opinion testimony.
Key quotations
“Although criminal defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial under both constitutions that can be waived, neither grants “a right to a trial by the court.”” (at 4)
“A new trial should be granted only when “the evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict rendered” and if the “verdict rendered was a miscarriage of justice.”” (at 5)
Factual background
Pacheco Belen and the victim had an on-and-off romantic relationship, which the victim attempted to end because of his erratic and aggressive behavior. In February 2023, the district court issued a five-year criminal no-contact order protecting the victim, but Pacheco Belen repeatedly contacted or approached her. On October 16, 2023, he followed the victim at a gym, recorded her as she sat in her car, and later followed her with his mother, causing the victim to abandon her plans and report the incident to police.
Procedural history
After a four-day jury trial, the jury found Pacheco Belen guilty of stalking in violation of a protective order. The district court denied his request, made the night before trial and renewed the next morning, to waive a jury trial and proceed to a bench trial. The court also denied his motion for a new trial and sentenced him to an indeterminate five-year prison term consecutive to sentences for other convictions. The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.