Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0805 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Diamond Unique Campbell, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Melissa Anderson-Seeber, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua Henry, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Buller, J. 1 BULLER, Judge. Diamond Campbell appeals her conviction for first-degree arson, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Considering Campbell set two fires near a residence and the jury was permitted to infer she intended the natural and probable consequences of her actions, we affirm. BACKGROUND FACTS & PROCEEDINGS In December 2024, Kenneth Keller lived in half a duplex in Waterloo. Cieance Harris lived in the other half. One morning, after Keller got up around 4:30 a.m., he let his dog—a male pit bull whose name does not appear in the record—out the back of his house on a chain. He brought the dog back in and put him in the kennel before he left around 5:20 a.m. As he left to go to work, he saw Campbell sitting in her vehicle on the road running next to Harris’s side of the duplex. At 6:37 a.m., a security camera on a house across the side street captured footage of a fire several feet high in front of Harris’s side of the duplex. A little more than five minutes later, the fire had largely died down into a low smolder. Another neighbor across the street from the duplex also had security cameras. That camera’s footage also showed the fire by Harris’s house starting at 6:37, but it also showed a figure standing on the front stoop behind the fire and a white car across the street from the duplex. The car backed out of frame around 6:55, after the first fire had gone out, and pulled down the alley along Keller’s side of the duplex. At 7:03, the security footage showed a second fire burning next to Keller’s wall; a figure walked closer to the fire, it flared higher, and then the figure walked from the fire to the white car parked in the alley with its door open. The car pulled out of the alley and back onto the street across from the duplex at 7:05. 2 At 7:05 a.m., Campbell called 911, reporting a fire at the duplex with people inside the home screaming. According to Campbell, the meter box was on fire. After supposedly knocking on the door, she came back on the line saying “There’s people in the basement there. Please help us! Please help us!” She described the flames as “going in” a vent and mentioned a dog inside as a reason why she couldn’t open the door to warn residents. A neighbor’s security camera showed Campbell returning to her car from the residence mid-call. When the first responder arrived, he discovered the second fire at the front corner of Keller’s duplex. The fire was on a concrete base with dried leaves around it and was located between a basement window and the gas meter; it was only about “one square foot.” The fire captain pounded on Keller’s door yelling, “Fire Department,” but received no answer. The captain walked around the entire building checking for the reported people screaming for help; he didn’t find any people but did find the remnants of the first small fire next to Harris’s front stoop, away from the walls. The fire engine arrived and extinguished the fire on the side of Keller’s home. The only damage to the house was from the second fire: the window-well cover near the gas meter partially melted. The captain found Campbell sitting in her car on the street in front of the house. When asked about the report of people screaming, she claimed that she and her friend—Harris—heard it. A brick with cloth wrapped around it was located in the middle of the second fire site by the window and meter; other clothing was discovered in the remnants of the fire in front of Harris’s residence. The captain knew the fires weren’t natural and called in the fire marshal to investigate. 3 The fire inspector determined the fires were incendiary events “started with a handheld lighter device.” According to him, there was plenty of fuel near the first fire to keep it going, including scattered dried leaves, so it had been extinguished by someone else before the firefighters arrived. The area of damage caused by the first fire was around two feet wide by the front corner of concrete stairs. The fire debris from the second fire was also around two feet wide, but one edge reached the base of the wall. A criminalist from the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation tested debris samples from both fires and found petroleum distillate ignitable liquids in both samples. Local police also investigated. An officer identified the nearby residences with security cameras and obtained the footage discussed above. The officer was able to determine from that footage that the white car observed “was consistent” with the car on scene used by Campbell. He also identified “a really distinct walk” with limping from the videos consistent with his observations of Campbell’s gait. The officer then arrested Campbell for arson; a search of her person revealed “a black Bic lighter that was inside her left coat pocket.” As she was arrested, she insisted there were people in Keller’s basement when she lit the fire. When police talked to Campbell, she said she’d heard people in the neighbor’s basement and admitted lighting the first fire with her shirt because “he’d be letting his dog out,” and said the dog was vicious. But she also said it was an accident and that usually the dog comes after her when she tries to go to her car, so she “just lit the shirts to be safe.” At trial, Harris testified that Campbell had told her there was “a white man out there with a dog” threatening Campbell around “5:00 to 6:00 a.m.” and Harris believed her because “he’s very rude” and “the man does that.” Harris distinguished 4 between this man and her neighbor and his dog. No other person or dog was visible in the security camera footage around the time of either fire. A jury found Campbell guilty of arson in the first degree, a class “B” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 712.2 (2024). Campbell appeals. DISCUSSION “We review [a] challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law.” State v. Brown, 32 N.W.3d 774, 778 (Iowa 2026). A jury verdict binds this court if supported by substantial evidence—that is, “evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, including reasonable inferences fairly drawn from the evidence. Id. The court instructed the jury that the State had to prove the following elements of first-degree arson: 1. On or about December 10, 2024, Diamond Campbell caused a fire or placed a burning, combustible, or incendiary material in or near [duplex’s addresses], Waterloo, Iowa. 2. Diamond Campbell intended to destroy or damage the property or knew the property would probably be destroyed or damaged. 3. The presence of a person in the property could have been reasonably anticipated. See Iowa Code §§ 712.1(1), .2(1). Campbell only challenges the second element, arguing the State failed to prove that she intended to destroy or damage the property or knew that was the probable result. Instead, she claims she lit the fires to scare a dog and urges her conduct only amounted to the reckless use of fire. But the jury was instructed they could “conclude a person intends the natural results of her acts.” As the State says in its appellate brief, 5 “The natural and probable consequence of setting a fire . . . immediately adjacent to a residence is that the residence would be damaged or destroyed.” “Intent is a matter that is seldom capable of direct proof. Consequently, we have recognized that a trier of fact may infer intent from the normal consequences of one’s actions.” State v. Evans, 672 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003). The jury was instructed that to “intend” something “means not only being aware of doing an act and doing it voluntarily, but in addition, doing it with a specific purpose in mind.” After setting and extinguishing the initial fire near Harris’s front stoop, Campbell got in her car, drove down the alley, and then returned to set the fire by Keller’s side of the duplex. She was aware how high the fire could get (and how quickly) from the first fire, but she still chose to set the second fire next to the gas meter with plenty of dried leaves surrounding it to serve as fuel. And security footage showed her putting some sort of accelerant on the already-burning fire, causing it to flare up. She then moved her car from the alley back to the street before calling emergency services. With her own words, Campbell’s 911 call suggests she believed the gas meter was on fire. Viewing the evidence as a whole, the jury reasonably concluded Campbell either intended to damage or destroy the property or knew damage or destruction would probably result. AFFIRMED. 6