## Facts

- A Sioux City police officer observed a van parked outside a business around 1:50 a.m. with a sliding door partially open.
- As the officer approached and shined a light on the van, the brake lights flashed.
- Two men ran from the van; the officer pursued briefly but did not apprehend them then.
- The officer returned to the van and saw the steering column had been forcibly removed, wires protruded from it, the radio was on, and the “check engine” light was illuminated.
- Trial evidence indicated the intruder(s) had manipulated the wiring to engage the van’s electrical systems and ignition functions short of starting the engine.
- Police later located and identified Dean Lester Donaldson as one of the fleeing men.
- Donaldson was charged with second-degree theft as an habitual offender based on obtaining “possession or control” of the van.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that a defendant broke into a vehicle and manipulated its ignition/electrical system—without starting the engine or moving the vehicle—establishes “possession or control” sufficient for theft under Iowa Code § 714.1.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Donaldson’s theft conviction.
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance regarding preservation of the sufficiency challenge.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed Donaldson’s conviction.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding that Donaldson obtained “possession or control” of the van under Iowa Code § 714.1.
- The court rejected the claim that the conduct amounted only to attempted theft.
- The court rejected the ineffective-assistance claim, concluding counsel preserved the issue and the underlying argument failed on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa’s theft statute replaces common-law asportation with the requirement that the defendant obtain or exert “possession or control” over another’s property with intent to steal.
- “Possession or control” does not require physical movement of the property; dominion may be shown by functional control over a vehicle’s operation.
- Breaking into a vehicle, dismantling the steering column, and engaging the ignition/electrical systems can constitute unauthorized dominion sufficient to satisfy “possession or control,” even if the engine is not started.
- Intent to steal may be inferred from circumstantial evidence such as forced entry, disabling the steering/ignition mechanism, and flight from police.

## Conclusion

The court held that theft under Iowa Code § 714.1 can be completed without moving a vehicle where the defendant’s conduct shows unauthorized dominion and operational control, and it affirmed the theft conviction on that basis.


State v. Donaldson, 663 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa 2003)