Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1023 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. John Cisto Saldivar II, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, The Honorable Justin Lightfoot, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson (argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, and Kyle R. Kopf (until withdrawal), Law Student, attorneys for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman (argued), Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Heard at oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. 1 BADDING, Judge. Casting his on-again, off-again girlfriend Nicole as a “crazy woman,” John Saldivar maintained that she invented an assault that left her and their two toddlers injured because she was jealous of his relationship with another woman. The jury believed Nicole and found Saldivar guilty of third-offense domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and two counts of child endangerment causing bodily injury. Saldivar appeals, claiming that (1) the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of Nicole’s jealousy; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the child endangerment conviction involving his younger child; and (3) the court imposed an illegal and procedurally defective sentence by automatically issuing a five-year no-contact order at his sentencing. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS John Saldivar began dating Nicole in December 2019. He moved into her home in March 2020, and they had their first child that November. Their second child was born in February 2022. The couple often argued and, according to Nicole, “[e]ventually it got more physical where property was destroyed, and then it also led to . . . threats, and then it became physical towards me as well.” During their relationship, Saldivar was convicted of assaulting Nicole twice. And Nicole said there were other assaults that she did not report. After one of those assaults in October 2022, during which Saldivar had her up against a kitchen cabinet by her neck, Nicole obtained a protective order. For the next two years, the couple coparented their children without incident. But after the order expired in October 2024—and while a custody action that 2 Nicole had filed was pending—the two resumed their relationship. The next month, Saldivar was charged with assaulting Nicole for a third time. The assault occurred on November 12 while Saldivar and Nicole were exchanging custody of their children, who were injured in the fray. Nicole testified that in the months before the assault, Saldivar would contact her every couple of weeks to talk about wanting me back, wanting us back, giving certain stipulations. And then after sleeping together, may be positive towards me for a day, and then all of a sudden would be basically negative, and act like I made it all up in my head or something. I don’t know. . . . I felt like I was just being used. Despite those ups and downs, things were good between the couple at the beginning of November, according to Nicole. She testified that on November 10, she gave Saldivar—who did not have a driver’s license—a ride to another town. They talked about getting back together and had sex, even though Nicole knew that Saldivar was seeing another woman named Beth. Two days later, on November 12, Saldivar told Nicole that he didn’t have a ride to the police station for their custody exchange that evening. So Nicole agreed to bring the children to him at 5:30 p.m. But when she got to his house, no one was home. When Saldivar finally showed up, he was with Beth. Nicole left the children with Saldivar and returned a few hours later to pick them up. One of the children opened the door for her. The younger child walked out with his shoes and socks in his hand. The older child, who was only wearing pants, jumped into her arms. Because it was a cool November night, Nicole testified that she asked Saldivar—who was lying on the couch—for the child’s shirt and shoes. While Beth looked for those items, Nicole said that Saldivar started talking to her about wanting to see the boys more. After she told Saldivar they should address that issue in court, Nicole 3 testified that Saldivar “aggressively pushed” the child’s shoes at her. Frustrated, Nicole raised her voice and told Saldivar that she still needed the shirt. Nicole testified that Saldivar came more to the door, and took his hand and grabbed my right arm and shoved me back, and then went to go shut the door. At that moment I, when I got shoved, I got shoved backwards onto our two-year-old who I guess sat behind me during all this to put on his shoes, and I’m still holding our three-year-old. All three were injured from the fall. Nicole hit her head against the concrete, scraped her arm and wrist, and developed a large bruise on her thigh. One child hit his head, scraped his back, and was bleeding from his arm. The other had scrapes on his arm and back and injured his wrist. Concerned about the children’s injuries, Nicole took them to the emergency room. A nurse reported the assault to the police, and two officers were dispatched to the hospital to investigate. After questioning Nicole about the incident and taking pictures of the injuries, they tried to contact Saldivar but failed. The next day, after Saldivar’s uncle told him that Nicole took the children to the hospital, Saldivar called the police to report a burglary at his house. On a bodycam video that was played for the jury, Saldivar told the investigating officer that he was having issues with Nicole, his “crazy ass baby momma.” He suggested that she broke into his house two days earlier and tore it apart “looking for something.” The officer told Saldivar there wasn’t much that he could do because of the time that had passed, and he asked if Saldivar had any questions. Saldivar did. He wanted to know whether a report had been made about him the night before. When the officer said that he “had no idea,” Saldivar told him that Nicole had been at his house to pick up their children. He told her to get out, but she wouldn’t leave and kept her 4 foot in the door. Saldivar said that she had one of their sons in her arms and their other son “was outside right behind the door apparently.” Saldivar told the officer that “when she stepped out of the door, when I went to go shut it, she tripped and fell over our youngest son.” Beth, who was standing by listening to Saldivar’s story, told the officer they just wanted to “document it” and “get in front of it.” A criminal complaint charging Saldivar with third-offense domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and two counts of child endangerment was filed on November 27. Despite the charges, Saldivar and Nicole continued to have contact with one another, and on December 5, Nicole was arrested for trespassing at Saldivar’s home. Saldivar was arrested the same day on the assault and child endangerment charges. He proceeded to trial on those charges in March 2025. Before opening statements at the jury trial, the parties discussed three items of evidence that Saldivar wanted to admit. The first was Nicole’s trespass arrest. Defense counsel explained that its theory of the case was essentially that the alleged victim in this case . . . and Mr. Saldivar had a long history together. They have children together. During the time that this incident is alleged to have occurred, it’s our contention that [Nicole] was making an effort to get back with Mr. Saldivar and try to make things between them exclusive. . . . .... . . . On November 12, there was a different woman at Mr. Saldivar’s residence and [Nicole] was upset with that. That provided motive for making the claim that’s at issue in this case. I think that her behavior after that, after November 12th, which would include this trespass, is relevant to [that]. . . . I think that it goes to her motives in this case and potentially credibility if she makes some claim that he’s dangerous to her children or 5 to her, and then she’s sought out contact with him and then refused to leave when requested, even when requested by the police. To further the theory that Nicole fabricated the assault, Saldivar also sought to admit two sets of text messages. The first, Exhibit A, contained messages between Saldivar and Nicole from November 19 through November 29. In them, Nicole tells Saldivar that she “heard your married and expecting. Congrats on that.” She also tells him that she’s pregnant. When Saldivar tells her, “I don’t have time for these fucking mind games are you fuckin pregnant or [n]ot,” Nicole responds, “Your the only one putting your dick in everything but truth.” In another message, Nicole tells Saldivar that “[e]verything I ask is being back home with you [as] family and you can’t handle that.” A few days later, she texted Saldivar that although she had been “late by a lot, no longer the case today. . . I keep forgetting when you have shared the same feelings that I have towards us it doesn’t last more than in the moment with you.” The second set of text messages, Exhibit B, were from December 4. In those messages, the two talked about Saldivar missing their son’s birthday and about getting together for dinner. But when Saldivar stopped replying to her messages about dinner, Nicole expressed her frustration, texting: “I’m leaving everything on your end now. Because you show me that I’m just a place holder and I am worth being a priority.” The State objected to all this evidence, arguing that it was not relevant. The district court agreed, in part. After a preliminary ruling that sustained the State’s objection to the trespass evidence, the court decided to let Saldivar ask Nicole about going to his house on December 5 but not “that she was arrested, or charged with trespass, or pled guilty to trespass.” The court overruled the State’s objection to Exhibit A, finding that it “showed someone 6 who may be jealous” and have a motive to fabricate the assault. But it sustained the objection to Exhibit B because the messages were later in time and did not contain much to support the defense’s jealousy theory. With those rulings in hand, defense counsel asked Nicole about the text messages in Exhibit A on cross-examination. She testified that she was emotionally frustrated with Saldivar when she sent the messages and was “feeling let down.” Nicole explained that a couple weeks prior he was making it seem like he wanted to be back with me and everything, and talking about how we can make that work, hitting all the right areas that he knows with me that will make me fall for him again, and then just like that, he switches. In the weeks after the assault on November 12, Nicole testified that her feelings for Saldivar “started stirring up again” and that she went to his house on December 5 because she “felt like he wanted me over there.” Although Saldivar did not testify at trial, Beth did on his behalf. She described Nicole as a “crazy person” who was “obsessed” with Saldivar. She testified that when Nicole arrived to pick up the children, Nicole was very aggressive and “verbally harassing,” just “running her mouth.” Beth said that after Saldivar “raise[d] his voice a little bit and made it a lot more stern that she was not welcome in the house,” Nicole stepped back from the doorway, tripped over the younger child, and fell. Beth insisted that Saldivar “did not touch [Nicole] at all” and that he “didn’t go near her the whole time,” even though Saldivar told the officer who responded to his burglary report that he was at the door when Nicole fell. On cross-examination, Beth acknowledged that she had exchanged hundreds of phone calls and text messages with Saldivar while he was in jail, although she maintained they were no longer in a relationship. 7 After hearing this evidence, the jury found Saldivar guilty as charged. The district court sentenced Saldivar to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed five years on each count. The court also terminated the temporary no-contact order that had been entered at the start of the case and replaced it with a five-year no-contact order under Iowa Code section 664A.5 (2024). Saldivar appeals. DISCUSSION I. Evidence Issues Saldivar claims the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Nicole fabricated the assault because she was jealous of Beth. He contends that the text messages in Exhibit B were relevant to show the nature of the relationship between Saldivar and Nicole and “crucial to a fact- finder in resolving inconsistent witness testimony.” He also contends that Nicole’s arrest for trespass showed “the strength of her desire to be with” him and “the lengths she would go to accomplish that,” which “speaks directly to her jealousy.”1 We review these claims for an abuse of discretion. State v. Helmers, 753 N.W.2d 565, 567 (Iowa 2008). “A court abuses its discretion when it exercised its discretion on ʻgrounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an 1 The State contends that Saldivar did not preserve error on his argument about Nicole’s trespass arrest because the court’s ruling was not final and Saldivar did not make an offer of proof. While the court did make a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of the trespass evidence, it later issued an unequivocal ruling that the parties treated as final. See State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 406–07 (Iowa 2006). As for Saldivar’s failure to make an offer of proof, the substance of the evidence—Nicole’s arrest on December 5 for trespassing at Saldivar’s house—was apparent. See State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 806 (Iowa 2021). We accordingly decide this issue on its merits. 8 extent clearly unreasonable.’” Id. (citation omitted). We find no abuse of discretion here. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant. Iowa R. Evid. 5.402. “Evidence meets the test for relevance if ʻit has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence’ and ʻthe fact is of consequence in determining the action.’” State v. Buelow, 951 N.W.2d 879, 885 (Iowa 2020) (cleaned up) (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.401). Stated another way, “[e]vidence is relevant if it can ʻthrow any light upon the matter contested.’” Id. (citation omitted). Neither the text messages in Exhibit B nor Nicole’s trespass arrest meet that low bar. See State v. Thoren, 970 N.W.2d 611, 622 (Iowa 2022) (“Relevance is a relatively low bar.” (cleaned up)). The messages in Exhibit B—which were exchanged three weeks after the assault—do not mention the assault, Beth, or any jealousy on Nicole’s part. Instead, Nicole tells Saldivar that she was annoyed when he missed their son’s birthday and frustrated when he asked to go to dinner but then stopped responding to her messages. We agree with the State “that frustration does not equate to long-standing jealousy. And any anger from this conversation cannot create a motive for her earlier statements.” As for the trespass arrest, in excluding that evidence, the district court reasoned: Basically, the proffered evidence I know is that about three weeks after the alleged assault she went to his house, refused to leave, and ended up pleading guilty to trespass. . . . I think there’s too much speculation needed to get from Point A to Point B in terms of that fact making it any more or less probable . . . that she’s making this up. We know that they share children, so it would not be odd for them to continue to have contact. Even if she went there to try to get back together, there’s no evidence in the record . . . that it would 9 be uncommon for domestic abuse victims to want to return to their abusers. The court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining that “the necessary minimum level of logical connection between the offered evidence and the fact to be proven”—Nicole’s jealousy and motive to fabricate the assault—was missing. State v. Thompson, 954 N.W.2d 402, 407 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). In addition to these relevancy concerns, the district court also found the evidence should be excluded under the balancing test in Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403. That rule provides that “relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is ʻsubstantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.’” Id. at 408 (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.403). “Weighing probative value against prejudicial effect is not an exact science, so we give a great deal of leeway to the trial judge who must make this judgment call.” Id. (cleaned up). Part of the defense’s theory of relevance at trial was that Nicole’s messages to Saldivar and her appearance at his house after the assault were “not consistent with someone who had just been pushed and made a police report, that she has different motives here.” The district court was concerned by that argument, finding it risked misleading jurors who were unaware of the typical behavior of domestic abuse victims. The court was also concerned with “this turning into kind of a sideshow about what happened three weeks after this incident.” And, as the State notes, the evidence was cumulative of other evidence in the record about the couple’s relationship and Nicole’s jealousy, specifically the text messages in Exhibit A where she questioned Saldivar about being “married and expecting” before telling him that she was 10 pregnant too. See State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 807 (Iowa 2021) (finding excluded text messages were of low probative value because they were cumulative of other evidence at trial on the same issue). Given the low probative value of the omitted evidence—and the court’s wide discretion under rule 5.403—we cannot conclude its decision to exclude the evidence was clearly untenable or unreasonable. See id. at 808. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Saldivar next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for the child endangerment count involving the parties’ younger child—the two-year-old sitting behind Nicole when she fell. We review that challenge for the correction of errors at law. See State v. Gibbs, 36 N.W.3d 685, 689 (Iowa 2026). In conducting our review, we are highly deferential to the jury’s verdict. The jury’s verdict binds this court if the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We 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. Id. (cleaned up). We also “recognize that circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence.” State v. Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022). The jury was instructed that to find Saldivar guilty of child endangerment causing bodily injury, the State needed to prove—among other elements—that he “acted with knowledge that he was creating a substantial risk to [the child’s] physical, mental, or emotional health or safety.” See also Iowa Code § 726.6(1)(a). Saldivar argues the State failed to prove this element because there was no evidence that he knew where the 11 child was “during the tense and elevated interaction” with Nicole. That argument suggests the State needed to prove Saldivar’s knowledge with direct evidence. However, a defendant’s knowledge, like any other fact, “may be proved not only by direct evidence, but also by reasonable inferences drawn from” the surrounding circumstances. State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Iowa 2005) (noting that knowledge is seldom capable of direct proof ). A rational trier of fact could have found from the surrounding circumstances that Saldivar knew the child was near Nicole when he pushed her. Nicole testified that when the door to Saldivar’s house opened, their two-year-old “quickly walked with his shoes out the door behind” her, while their older child jumped into her arms. Saldivar was lying on the couch in the living room while Beth looked for the children’s clothes. Nicole testified that Saldivar eventually got up and pushed their older child’s shoes at her before grabbing her arm and shoving her back. While Beth testified that Saldivar “was not anywhere near” Nicole, she added that his house was “not a huge place.” And when telling his story to the officer who took the burglary report, Saldivar acknowledged, “My other son was outside right behind the door apparently.” Upon viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, we conclude Saldivar’s conviction is supported by substantial evidence. III. No-Contact Order Finally, Saldivar challenges the five-year no-contact order imposed by the district court at sentencing. He argues: The District Court imposed an illegal and procedurally defective sentence on Mr. Saldivar when it automatically modified the temporary no- contact order into a five-year sentencing no-contact order without considering any evidence or holding the State to its burden of proof. The 12 statute granting the court authority to enter an NCO, the evidentiary standards applicable to injunctions, general sentencing principles, and due process all require a district court to exercise its discretion and consider whether the evidence supports the imposition of a sentencing NCO before issuing such an order. Our supreme court recently rejected these same arguments in State v. Hall, 35 N.W.3d 538, 545–46 (Iowa 2026), as did our court in State v. Hunter, No. 24-1999, 2026 WL 892487, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026). Because the court’s decision in Hall controls the outcome here, both on the merits and on the State’s error preservation concerns, we affirm the court’s imposition of the five-year no-contact order. AFFIRMED. 13