Background
Josie Rhea Rump was convicted by a Wapello County jury of malicious prosecution and false reporting of an indictable criminal offense. The charges arose after she reported that her employer, D.W., had sexually assaulted her during two September 2023 encounters.
The State presented video evidence, witness accounts, and Rump’s messages with a friend indicating that the encounters were consensual. The evidence also included reports that Rump sought a year of salary and a nondisclosure agreement before contacting law enforcement. The district court imposed concurrent 365-day sentences, suspending all but 30 days on each count, and found Rump presumed able to pay all category B restitution.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals held that substantial evidence supported both convictions. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict, the court concluded the jury could find that Rump knew her sexual-assault report was false and that D.W. had not committed the reported offense. The jury was entitled to reject Rump’s contrary account and assess the credibility of the evidence.
The court agreed with the State that the restitution ruling was erroneous. Because Rump requested a determination of her reasonable ability to pay category B restitution, Iowa Code section 910.2A(2) required a hearing. The court therefore affirmed the convictions, vacated the full-ability-to-pay restitution finding, and remanded for the required hearing.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Rump knowingly made a false sexual-assault report.
- An appellate court will not reweigh competing testimony when the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
- A court must hold a hearing when an offender requests a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination for category B restitution under Iowa Code section 910.2A(2).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidentiary basis on which a jury may find that a criminal report was knowingly false, including contemporaneous communications and evidence inconsistent with the reported account. It also enforces the procedural protection requiring a hearing before a court determines the amount of category B restitution an offender can reasonably pay.