State of Iowa v. Dennis Wayne Ruppe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-2002
Filed May 8, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DENNIS WAYNE RUPPE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gregory W.

Steensland, Judge.

Defendant appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury

causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal

mischief. AFFIRMED.

Matthew Knipe and Allison Schwach of Berry Law Firm, Omaha, Nebraska,

for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2024).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

Dennis Ruppe appeals his convictions for attempted murder, willful injury

causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal

mischief. We do not address Ruppe’s claim he received ineffective assistance of

counsel while the court was polling the jury, as we do not address claims of

ineffective assistance in a direct appeal. Ruppe did not file a pretrial objection to

the venue and this issue is therefore waived. The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Ruppe’s motion for a new trial. We affirm Ruppe’s

convictions.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

From evidence presented during the trial, the jury could find the following

facts. On June 6, 2021, the two teenage children of Carnell Walker heard a

popping sound outside in the alley behind their house. When they looked out, they

saw the tires on Walker’s work van had been slashed and Ruppe was walking

towards his home with a knife. The two children told their father what they saw.

Walker told his wife to call 911. He went over to Ruppe’s house to ask what was

going on.

Walker testified that as he came toward Ruppe’s house, Ruppe rushed at

him with the knife. The two men struggled to gain control of the knife. On video

from a Ring doorbell, someone says, “Hey, motherf***er, you come on over here,

you’re going to die.” Walker stated that as he was trying to get away, Ruppe

slashed his back. He received lacerations on his chest, left torso, right clavicle,

back, chin, and right neck. Walker’s children came down the alley towards the

fight. Walker yelled at them to run; Walker and his children went back to his house.
3

Alonso Limas, who lived nearby, testified he heard air coming out of tires

and a commotion. He saw Walker bleeding as Walker went back to his house.

Limas walked down the alley towards Ruppe’s residence. Ruppe pointed a gun at

him, so Limas turned around and went back home.

Council Bluffs police officers quickly responded to the scene. They

observed Walker’s injuries and obtained medical assistance for him. When they

talked to Ruppe, he had an injury to his thumb. Officers followed a trail of blood

droplets to Ruppe’s parents’ house, which was next door to Ruppe’s house. After

obtaining a search warrant, they found Ruppe’s bloody keys and wallet in the

parents’ home. In Ruppe’s home, officers found a bloody knife inside a boot.

Ruppe presented a defense of justification. He claimed there were noise

disturbances in the neighborhood. Ruppe testified that he complained to Walker

about the noise. He admitted that he poked holes in the tires of Walker’s work van.

Ruppe stated that after he returned to his property, he jumped at an unknown

person he believed was trespassing. He testified that a fight ensued while he was

holding the knife. Ruppe stated that he pulled out his firearm to scare Limas away.

The jury found Ruppe guilty of attempted murder, in violation of Iowa Code

section 707.11(1) (2021); willful injury causing serious injury, in violation of section

708.4(1); assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, in violation of section

708.2(3); and fourth-degree criminal mischief, in violation of section 716.6(1)(a)(1).

The court polled the jury but the record shows only eleven jurors were asked if they

agreed with the verdict.

Ruppe filed a motion for new trial. He claimed the verdict was not

unanimous, the State did not prove venue, and the verdict was contrary to the
4

weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion for new trial. Ruppe was

sentenced to terms of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years and ten years

on the first two counts, to be served concurrently. Ruppe was sentenced to sixty

days in jail on each of the other two counts, these two sentences to be served

concurrently. The sentences on the first two counts are to be served consecutively

to the sentences on the third and fourth counts. Ruppe appeals his convictions.

II. Unanimous Jury

When the jury returned the verdict in this case, the district court individually

polled the jury, but the record shows the court only questioned eleven jurors.

Defense counsel did not bring this issue to the court’s attention at a time the court

could have corrected any problem. On appeal, Ruppe contends he received

ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not object when the district

court polled only eleven jurors about the verdict.

Ruppe’s appellate brief admits, “[u]nder Iowa’s current preservation

structure, this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.” Under

section 814.7, a court does not have authority to address a claim of ineffective

assistance in a direct appeal. State v. Rutherford, 997 N.W.2d 142, 145 (Iowa

2023).

Ruppe asserts the issue could be addressed under the plain error rule. The

Iowa Supreme Court has rejected the use of the plain error rule in Iowa. State v.

Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“We do not subscribe to the plain

error rule in Iowa, have been persistent in rejecting it, and are not at all inclined to

yield on this point.”); accord State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021)

(“We have repeatedly rejected plain error review and will not adopt it now.”). We
5

are not at liberty to overrule supreme court precedent. Bomgaars v. State, 967

N.W.2d 41, 48 n.4 (Iowa 2021). We do not address in this direct appeal Ruppe’s

claims regarding whether the verdict was given by a unanimous jury.

III. Venue

Ruppe asserts the State did not adequately show the offenses occurred in

Pottawattamie County.1 “Sufficiency of the evidence claims are reviewed for

corrections of errors at law.” State v. Lilly, 930 N.W.2d 293, 298 (Iowa 2019).

In general, “[a] criminal action shall be tried in the county in which the crime

is committed.” Iowa Code § 803.2(1). Additionally, “[a]ll objections to venue are

waived by a defendant unless the defendant objects thereto and secures a ruling

by the trial court on a pretrial motion for change of venue.” Id. § 803.2(3). Ruppe

did not object to the venue in Pottawattamie County prior to the trial and, therefore,

any objections on this issue have been waived. See State v. Sierra-Rojas, No. 18-

0492, 2019 WL 480103, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2019). Because Ruppe has

waived the issue of venue, we do not further address this matter.

IV. Motion for New Trial

Ruppe contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his

motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict was contrary to the weight of the

evidence. He claims the State did not prove he acted without justification. He

1 The venue for a trial is a nonjurisdictional issue. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d
181, 185 (Iowa 1994).
Venue deals with convenience and location of the trial rather than
the power of the court to decide an issue on its merits. A defendant
must secure a ruling by the trial court before trial or the venue issue
is waived. The State has the burden of proving venue by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Id. (citations omitted).
6

points out Walker testified Ruppe rushed at him with a knife in his hand and Walker

“immediately grabbed the knife.” Ruppe asserts Walker’s testimony supports his

defense of justification.

A district court ruling on a motion for new trial on the grounds the verdict is

contrary to the weight of the evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State

v. Krogmann, 998 N.W.2d 141, 150 (Iowa 2023). “Our review is not to determine

whether the verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence but only to determine

whether the district court abused its considerable discretion in denying the motion.”

State v. Stendrup, 983 N.W.2d 231, 246 (Iowa 2022). “This is a deferential

standard, and we will not reverse the district court’s ruling absent a ‘clear and

manifest abuse of discretion.’” Id. (quoting State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180,

216 (Iowa 2013)).

The district court ruled, “the evidence in this case was overwhelming, and

the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Ruppe admitted he

slashed the tires of Walker’s work van. He admitted he and Walker fought while

Ruppe was armed with a knife. Walker sustained several lacerations. Events

preceding and following the attack are captured by a video from a Ring doorbell,

and the audio includes incriminating statements of the defendant threatening

Walker. We determine the district court’s ruling was not a manifest abuse of

discretion.

We affirm Ruppe’s convictions.

AFFIRMED.