State of Iowa v. Matthew Scott Serres

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1618
Filed December 4, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MATTHEW SCOTT SERRES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl Traum, Judge.

A defendant appeals his conviction for eluding while going more than

twenty-five miles per hour over the speed limit. AFFIRMED.

Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
2

TABOR, Chief Judge.

After hearing evidence that Matthew Serres led police on a high-speed

chase on his motorcycle, a jury found him guilty of eluding while going more than

twenty-five miles per hour over the speed limit. Serres appeals, contending that

the State failed to prove he was driving the motorcycle. Finding substantial

evidence to support the identification of Serres as the eluding motorcyclist, we

affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

Working the midnight shift on July 11, 2022, State Trooper Marissa

Mussmann saw three motorcyclists cross the Interstate 74 bridge from Illinois into

Iowa.1 None of the motorcycles had registration plates. After the motorcyclists left

the interstate and ran a stoplight, Trooper Mussmann activated her patrol vehicle’s

lights and sirens. But only two of the three motorcyclists pulled over. 2 The third

motorcyclist led the troopers on a chase through a residential neighborhood, a

commercial area, a store parking lot, and eventually back onto the interstate.

Trooper Mussmann recalled that the eluding motorcyclist drove “through

traffic signs, stop signs, stoplights without stopping” and hit speeds up to “eighty-

two in a thirty mile an hour residential zone.” Another state trooper and a

Bettendorf police officer, Landry Blunk, joined the chase. The motorcyclist was

going about one hundred miles per hour when Trooper Mussmann and Trooper

1 Trooper Mussmann was in field training with Trooper Ian Cornwell. She was
driving the patrol vehicle; he was in the front passenger seat.
2 By the time another patrol unit arrived, the two motorcyclists who pulled over had

left the scene. They were never identified.
3

Cornwell caught up with him on the interstate, pulling alongside the motorcycle to

“get a good view of the driver.”

Troopers Mussmann and Cornwell stopped pursuing the motorcyclist when

he crossed back into Illinois. But Officer Blunk continued to follow him from a

distance with his lights and sirens off. After the motorcyclist exited the interstate

in Moline, Officer Blunk saw him “crash out” and fall off his motorcycle at an

intersection. According to Blunk, the motorcyclist then “got back on the motorcycle

and quickly sped off to the south of the intersection.” Officer Blunk stayed at the

intersection and collected debris from the crash, including a saddlebag lid that fell

off the motorcycle. 3 As Officer Blunk was inspecting the crash scene, a bystander4

approached and led him to an alley, where the officer noticed the light on in a

garage and “what sounded like furniture” being moved inside. The officer then

notified the Iowa State Patrol of that address.

Receiving that notice, Troopers Mussmann and Cornwell determined that

Serres was listed as a registered driver at that same Moline address. Trooper

Mussmann then asked dispatch for Serres’s Illinois driver’s license photo. From

that photo, she confirmed that Serres was the eluding motorcyclist. After they

arrived at Serres’s address, the troopers and Officer Blunk identified a “Harley

Davidson-type” cruiser inside the garage as the motorcycle from the chase.

Trooper Mussmann approached the residence and spoke to Serres through the

3 Officer Blunk explained why he didn’t follow the motorcyclist when he left the

crash scene: “I slowly approached the intersection and called out to other units
that the bike had crashed. Being alone and not understanding the full
circumstances of why the bike failed to stop, I didn’t want to get out and engage
directly with the suspect at that time.”
4 The bystander was not identified and did not testify.
4

front door. Serres confirmed that the garage was his and that he owned

motorcycles inside.

The State charged Serres with eluding while going more than twenty-five

miles per hour over the speed limit, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(2)

(2022). He pleaded not guilty. The case went to jury trial in July 2023.

At trial, Trooper Mussmann testified that the eluding motorcyclist was a

“white male” riding “a Harley type bike with saddlebags on either side.” He was

“wearing a black sweatshirt and a black ball cap.” His cap flew off during the chase.

Trooper Mussmann also testified that before she shut down her lights and sirens,

she pulled parallel to the motorcycle to get a better view of the driver.5 She went

to Serres’s residence “within an hour” after the chase. Although he didn’t open the

door all the way when she spoke to him, Trooper Mussmann testified that she

could see Serres “a little bit” through “some gaps in the blinds.” She noticed tattoos

on his arms consistent with tattoos she saw on the motorcyclist.

During Trooper Mussmann’s testimony, the prosecutor asked Serres to

“present himself and roll up his sleeves slightly.” Trooper Mussmann then

identified him as the driver of the motorcycle. When defense counsel cross-

examined her about the accuracy of her identification, Trooper Mussmann doubled

down: “I observed a subject that looked exactly like Mr. Serres on that bike.” And

5
During her testimony, the jury viewed Trooper Mussmann’s dash camera video
of the chase, which showed the motorcyclist from behind as the troopers pulled up
next to him. The troopers were driving alongside him for around twenty seconds.
The motorcycle and the driver match Trooper Mussmann’s general descriptions,
but his face is not visible in the video.
5

she explained why she believed more investigation wasn’t necessary to connect

Serres to the chase:

Because we had made a photo identification of the subject, he was
seen in that area, the bike was observed with the lights on in the
garage that Mr. Serres identified as his garage, and made contact
with the subject at the front door who identified himself as Matthew
Serres, and I observed the tattoos that were consistent with the
subject that I saw on the motorcycle that I was pursuing.

Trooper Cornwell testified that during the chase, “I requested that Trooper

Mussmann pull up next to . . . the driver of the motorcycle so I can see his face

and identify him.” Although they were going “quite fast” at that point, Trooper

Cornwell was “able to get a good look” at the motorcyclist “because we were both

traveling at those speeds, we weren’t going opposite directions where it was just

a flash of a second, it was a consistent time where we’re both at those speeds.”

Trooper Cornwell also recalled that he called out a description of the motorcyclist

over the patrol vehicle’s radio as he was looking at him.6

During Trooper Cornwell’s testimony, the prosecutor again asked Serres “to

stand up and roll up his sleeves slightly.” Trooper Cornwell then identified Serres

as the driver of the motorcycle from that night. He testified that he recognized

Serres based on “both his facial appearance and his tattoos.” He elaborated that

Serres’s tattoo was distinctive because of “the dark coloring of it and just the

specific shapes of it.” And he explained that he could see the motorcyclist’s tattoo

during the chase “because while he was driving at those speeds, his long-sleeved

shirt did go up in the wind.”

6 Trooper Cornwell’s description of the motorcyclist is audible in the dash camera

video that the jury viewed.
6

Trooper Cornwell also testified that he got “a good look” at the motorcycle

during the chase. He described it as “a light blue, not a sport bike, but a cruiser or

bigger type bike.” He explained that he could identify the motorcycle in Serres’s

garage as the same motorcycle from the chase “because I was part of the chase,

witnessing it in the passenger seat and seeing it, especially pulling up next to it, as

that exact vehicle.”

Beyond the troopers’ testimony, Officer Blunk told the jury that he was “able

to get a good look at the motorcycle” during the chase. He described it as “a cruiser

style motorcycle” with “saddlebags on the back.” He elaborated that it was “kind

of like a Harley Davidson, a bigger style bike . . . . It was a darker color, I believe.

I think it was blue.” And he described the driver as “a male who was white. He

had facial hair and he had glasses on as well.” Moreover, Officer Blunk testified

that when he approached Serres’s garage, he saw a motorcycle “similar to the bike

that fled” through a “little peephole” in the garage door. 7 He explained that the

motorcycle in the garage “had damage consistent with the bike crashing out, and

also one of the saddlebags that matched the color scheme of the saddlebag lid

that I had found was missing from the bike.”

To counter the State’s case, the defense called Serres’s wife, Amber, as an

alibi witness. Amber testified that she was at home with Serres on Sunday night,

July 10, into the early morning hours of July 11. Around 12:30 a.m., they went

upstairs and had sex, according to her testimony. She estimated they were

7 The jury viewed Officer Blunk’s body camera video from when he approached

the garage with Trooper Cornwell. The “peephole” in the door is visible at the end
of the video, but the inside of the garage is not visible in the video.
7

upstairs for “an hour, hour and a half or so.” Afterward, Serres stayed upstairs;

Amber went downstairs and “fell asleep on the couch.” She explained that “usually

after we have sex [Serres] falls right to sleep” and that she has “a little Maltese,

that if anything moves in my house at all, he barks.” She believed that if Serres

had gotten up and left in the night, her Maltese would have barked and woken her

up. But the next thing she remembered was “getting woke up with pounding on

my front door” when the police arrived.

Amber recalled that when the police asked to speak to Serres, “I called up

the stairs for him and he didn’t answer, and I called him, like, twice and he still

didn’t answer, so I went upstairs and he was in bed.” Serres then came downstairs

wearing only his boxer shorts and spoke to the police; “he opened the door and

kind of like just had, like, his head out, like they could see his face.” Amber noted

that Serres did not have any visible injuries.

Amber also testified that she did not believe the eluding motorcyclist in

Trooper Mussmann’s dash camera video was Serres:

My first impression was that was not my husband because that guy,
whoever is on the bike, his shoulders are, like, broad and went down,
and my husband is nothing . . . he’s real skinny and just, like, his
shoulders aren’t broad . . . .
....
Yeah, that was my first response. I’m like no, that’s not him
just because of his shoulders.

Additionally, Amber described the hole in the garage door that the officers saw the

motorcycle through as “a nail hole” smaller than “a tip of a pencil” that “you could

see a light bit of light through.” And according to Amber, the motorcycle in the

garage that night was a white motorcycle that belonged to Serres’s friend.
8

The jury found Serres guilty as charged. The district court sentenced him

to 240 days in jail with all but seven days suspended, imposed a fine of $855, and

placed him on probation. Serres appeals.

II. Scope and Standard of Review

We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors at law.

State v. Cook, 996 N.W.2d 703, 708 (Iowa 2023). We are bound by the jury’s

verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Slaughter, 3 N.W.3d 540,

546 (Iowa 2024). Substantial evidence exists if the record “would convince a

rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v.

Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 516 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted). “Evidence which

merely raises suspicion, speculation, or conjecture is insufficient.” State v.

Casady, 491 N.W.2d 782, 787 (Iowa 1992). “We consider all evidence, not just

the evidence supporting the conviction, and view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State, ‘including legitimate inferences and presumptions that may

fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.’” State v. Ernst, 954

N.W.2d 50, 54 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

Serres argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

he was the eluding motorcyclist. He questions the reliability of the testimony from

the officers who identified him based on his tattoos and facial features. Serres

also points out gaps in the State’s evidence connecting him to the chase. For

example, Officer Blunk didn’t follow the motorcyclist after he “crashed out”; the

civilian who led Blunk to the alley wasn’t identified; no witness saw the motorcyclist

stop at Serres’s address; and Amber gave him an alibi.
9

Starting with the tattoos. The defense claims that Trooper Cornwell’s

testimony about the motorcyclist’s tattoos “is actually dispositive exculpatory

evidence that fully clears Matt Serres as a suspect.” In support of this claim, Serres

highlights an exchange during cross-examination when Trooper Cornwell

acknowledged that when he called out the description of the motorcyclist during

the chase, he described “an anarchy type tattoo” on “his left hand.” Serres’s

counsel then asked Serres to stand up, and Trooper Cornwell could not see “an

anarchy type tattoo” on Serres’s hand in the courtroom.

As for the reliability of the facial recognition, Serres emphasizes that “[w]hen

the squad car pulled up even with the bike on I-74, there is no video of what the

troopers were seeing as they looked at the driver.” He suggests that, contrary to

their testimony, the troopers couldn’t have gotten a “good look” at the motorcyclist

during the chase because they “only saw a profile of the driver, at a high rate of

speed,” and “[t]he profile was observed in the dark of night.” Serres also

emphasizes Amber’s testimony that she didn’t believe the motorcyclist in Trooper

Mussmann’s dash camera video was her husband.

On top of that, Serres questions the reliability of the officers’ identification

of the motorcycle in his garage as the one involved in the chase. He points out

that Amber “testified the hole in the garage door was even smaller than the ‘tiny

hole’ Officer Blunk described in his testimony.” He also points out that the officers

did not get a search warrant for the garage or take any photos of the motorcycle

they saw inside. Moreover, the saddlebag Officer Blunk collected from the crash

scene was not photographed or introduced into evidence. And the witnesses gave

varying descriptions of the motorcycle’s color.
10

In considering Serres’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, our

“review of the jury’s verdict is not the trial redux.” State v. Mathis, 971 N.W.2d 514,

519 (Iowa 2022). It is not our place “to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass

upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to

weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” Id. (citation omitted). “It is also

for the jury to decide which evidence to accept or reject.” State v. Brimmer, 983

N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022). And although we “consider all evidence, not just

the evidence supporting the conviction,” we must “view the evidence in the light

most favorable to the State.” Ernst, 954 N.W.2d at 54.

Viewing all the evidence in this light, a rational jury could find beyond a

reasonable doubt that Serres was the eluding motorcyclist. See State v. Brown, 5

N.W.3d 611, 616 (Iowa 2024) (finding sufficient evidence to support jury’s

determination that defendant was eluding driver where police officer saw driver’s

face during pursuit, officer identified defendant in court, and evidence connected

defendant to vehicle). Both Trooper Mussmann and Trooper Cornwell testified that

Serres was the motorcyclist they chased; they identified him based on his facial

features and tattoos, which they saw as they drove parallel to him on the interstate.

Serres was free to question the reliability of their identification at trial, but the jury

was also free to credit their testimony. And although Trooper Cornwell couldn’t

point out an anarchy tattoo on Serres’s hand during cross-examination, the jury

was free to accept his explanation on redirect that when he was describing the

motorcyclist’s tattoos during the chase, he wasn’t “necessarily referring to a

specific image or tattoo” but was instead “referring to a broad category” of tattoos.
11

The jury was also free to credit Trooper Cornwell’s testimony that the

motorcycle he saw in Serres’s garage was the one he and Trooper Mussmann

chased that night. Same for Officer Blunk’s testimony that the motorcycle in

Serres’s garage had damage consistent with the debris he found at the intersection

where the motorcyclist crashed. And it was up to the jury to determine whether to

credit Amber’s alibi; we cannot make these determinations for ourselves on

appellate review.8 See Mathis, 971 N.W.2d at 519. Finally, the jurors viewed

Trooper Mussmann’s dash camera video of the chase and Officer Blunk’s body

camera video showing the alley and Serres’s garage door. Based on the video

evidence, the jurors could decide for themselves whether Serres looked like the

eluding motorcyclist and whether Officer Blunk and the troopers could have seen

into the garage well enough to identify the motorcycle.

In sum, the State did not rely on evidence that created mere speculation,

suspicion, or conjecture. Instead, it presented substantial eyewitness and video

evidence to support the jury’s determination that Serres was the eluding

motorcyclist. Thus, we affirm Serres’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

8 In his reply brief, Serres concedes that Amber’s alibi testimony was “far from air-

tight.” He then claims that because the State did not introduce evidence
contradicting specific details of her testimony, we must give weight to these
“undisputed facts” in our review. But that kind of weighing is for the jurors.