State of Iowa v. Thomas Allen Doherty

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0367 Filed August 6, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

THOMAS ALLEN DOHERTY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, Terry Rickers,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his conviction for eluding a pursuing law enforcement

vehicle, alleging insufficient evidence supports the conviction. AFFIRMED.

Heidi Miller (until withdrawal) of The Law Office of Heidi Miller, Pleasantville,

and Jane White of Gribble Boles Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and David Banta, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and Vogel,

S.J.*

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

(2025).  2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

What began as an attempted traffic stop quickly turned into a car chase after

Thomas Doherty sped away from a Guthrie County Sheriff’s Deputy down a rural

gravel road. A jury convicted Doherty of third-degree eluding a pursuing law

enforcement vehicle and driving while barred. Doherty now appeals, arguing

insufficient evidence supports his eluding conviction. Because substantial

evidence supports the jury’s finding that Doherty willfully eluded a marked law

enforcement vehicle after being given visual and audible signals to stop, we affirm.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings.

On July 2, 2023, the Deputy passed an oncoming vehicle without a front

license plate. The vehicle was being driven by Doherty. The Deputy made a U-

Turn to pursue Doherty and followed him onto a gravel road. The Deputy engaged

his vehicle’s lights and sirens, but Doherty kept driving. The Deputy continued his

pursuit and despite driving roughly eighty miles per hour at times—far above the

fifty-five miles per hour speed limit for gravel roads—he was unable to catch

Doherty. For nearly six minutes, Doherty fled from the Deputy, only stopping and

pulling over after his exhaust pipe was knocked loose.

The State charged Doherty with eluding a pursuing law enforcement vehicle

and driving while barred. See Iowa Code §§ 321.279, .561 (2023). During a one-

day jury trial, both the Deputy and Doherty testified. Doherty acknowledged turning

onto the gravel road to avoid the Deputy but was adamant he never saw any lights

or heard any sirens indicating he needed to pull over. The jury found Doherty guilty

of both offenses—serious and aggravated misdemeanors—and he was sentenced  3

to two concurrent sixty-day periods in jail. Doherty now appeals the eluding

conviction, arguing it is not supported by substantial evidence.

II. Analysis.

“We review sufficiency-of-evidence claims for correction of errors at law and

will uphold the jury’s verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence.” State v.

Kieffer, 17 N.W.3d 651, 655 (Iowa 2025). Substantial evidence is that which “is

sufficient to convince a rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Id. (cleaned up). Throughout our “highly deferential” review,

we will “draw all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and

reasonably be deduced from the record in favor of the State.” State v. Stendrup,

983 N.W.2d 231, 241 (Iowa 2022).

If a driver “willfully fails to bring the motor vehicle to a stop or otherwise

eludes or attempts to elude a marked or unmarked official law enforcement vehicle

driven by a peace officer after being given a visual and audible signal to stop,” the

driver commits the serious misdemeanor of eluding a pursuing law enforcement

vehicle. Iowa Code § 321.279(1)(a). Doherty argues the State never proved that

he willfully eluded the Deputy because he testified that he did not see the Deputy’s

lights, nor did he hear any sirens, and thus he was unaware he needed to pull over.

However, Doherty overlooks that his testimony was not the only evidence

before the jury. The Deputy’s dash camera captured much of the pursuit, which

showed the Deputy engaging his sirens and pursuing Doherty at a high rate of

speed. Considering Doherty’s concession that he initially turned down the gravel

road to avoid the Deputy, coupled with the Deputy being unable to catch him

despite driving eighty miles an hour, the jury could reasonably reject Doherty’s  4

testimony that he was unaware of the pursuing law enforcement vehicle as

implausible. Ultimately, Doherty’s appeal asks us to independently weigh the

evidence and find his testimony more credible than the Deputy’s. This we may not

do. See State v. Howard, 14 N.W.3d 763, 767 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (instructing

that “sort[ing] out witness testimony” is “for the jury to decide—not for us to second-

guess on appeal”).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial

evidence supports the finding that Doherty willfully eluded the pursuing Deputy.

Thus, we affirm Doherty’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.