Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0670 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Zachary Scott Vulich, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Winnebago County, The Honorable Karen Kaufman Salic, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. 1 BADDING, Judge. “[E]ven a registered sex offender is allowed to have friends.” That was Zachary Vulich’s defense at his jury trial on four counts of failing to comply with the sex offender registry and one count of child endangerment for knowingly having control of or unsupervised access to a minor. The State alleged that Vulich violated the registry requirements by, among other things, residing with his girlfriend at an unregistered address that was within 2,000 feet of two child care facilities. Vulich argued that he was just a visitor at his girlfriend’s home, where her fifteen-year-old son also lived. The jury found Vulich guilty as charged. Vulich appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each of the convictions. Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, see State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa 2022), we find sufficient evidence to affirm the convictions. I. Background Facts and Proceedings As a convicted sex offender for an offense against a minor, Zachary Vulich was obligated to comply with the sex offender registry requirements in Iowa Code chapter 692A (2024). Those requirements included registering his residence and any internet identifiers with the county sheriff. Vulich was also prohibited from residing within 2,000 feet of a child care facility and from living with a minor who was not his biological child or stepchild. In the fall of 2024, Vulich had only one registered address: his home in Leland. But at the end of October, Deputy Todd Spooner—the designated sex offender registry deputy for Winnebago County—received a report that Vulich was living at an unregistered address in Forest City. The home at that address was occupied by Vulich’s girlfriend, Danielle Barnett; her two children, an eighteen-year-old daughter and fifteen-year-old C.S.; and 2 Vulich’s sister and her husband. There were two child care facilities less than 2,000 feet from the home. Deputy Spooner asked police officers in Forest City to monitor Barnett’s address and document Vulich’s presence there. They reported seeing Vulich’s truck parked at the house throughout November—during the day, overnight, and in the early morning. Deputy Spooner installed a camera on a telephone pole to record Vulich’s movements in mid-November. The camera showed Vulich coming and going from the house at all hours. A neighbor who lived across the alley testified that she saw Vulich “[a]lmost every day.” And a bus driver who transported C.S. to school testified that every time he picked C.S. up in November, Vulich walked him out of the house to the school’s van. Deputy Spooner also learned that the utilities for the home were in Vulich’s name. And law enforcement discovered that Vulich had an unregistered online account on Quora—“a question/answer based social media type platform.” The account was created in 2019 and last active in 2023. Vulich was arrested towards the end of November. Police executed a search warrant and found some of Vulich’s belongings in Barnett’s bedroom. Those belongings included Vulich’s watch, a receipt with his name on it, a pair of men’s socks in a dresser drawer, and an open package of men’s underwear that matched what Vulich was wearing when he was arrested. Vulich’s dog was also in the home, and his trailer was in the backyard. Despite these signs of Vulich’s presence, Barnett denied that Vulich lived with her or slept at her house. She explained that Vulich’s truck was often there because he was either fixing things for her or hanging out, playing games and watching movies. Barnett maintained that the boxers in her bedroom belonged to C.S. 3 and that Vulich had given her the dog. And she said the utility bill was in Vulich’s name because she had a past-due account with the city. The State charged Vulich with violating the sex offender registry for his failure to register the Forest City house as a residence and for residing within 2,000 feet of two child care facilities. He was also charged with a registry violation for the Quora account and with child endangerment for having control over or unsupervised access to C.S. After a two-day trial, the jury found Vulich guilty of each charge. Vulich appeals. II. Standard of Review We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction “for the correction of errors at law, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Sievers, 20 N.W.3d 203, 207 (Iowa 2025). “This includes making legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.” State v. Brown, 5 N.W.3d 611, 615 (Iowa 2024) (cleaned up). “Our review is highly deferential to the jury’s verdict, and we affirm the jury’s verdict when the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.” Sievers, 20 N.W.3d at 207 (cleaned up). Evidence is substantial when “it can convince a rational jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted). III. Analysis A. Residence Violations Vulich claims that the State failed to prove the residency element for his three registry convictions. For the count involving Vulich’s failure to register the address in Forest City, the jury was instructed the State had to prove that Vulich “knowingly failed to register or notify” the sheriff about 4 “his new or changed address and/or . . . temporary lodging within five days.” The instructions for the other two counts required the State to prove that Vulich “resided within 2,000 feet of the real property comprising a school or child care facility.” The jury was instructed that “residence” meant each dwelling or other place where a sex offender resides, sleeps, or habitually lives, or will reside, sleep, or habitually live, including a shelter or group home. If a sex offender does not reside, sleep, or habitually live in a fixed place, “residence” means a description of the locations where the offender is stationed regularly, including any mobile or transitory living quarters. “Residence” shall be construed to refer to the places where a sex offender resides, sleeps, habitually lives, or is stationed with regularity, regardless of whether the offender declares or characterizes such place as the residence of the offender. See Iowa Code § 692A.101(24) (defining “residence”). Vulich argues the “State’s evidence that he ʻspent time’ at a Forest City residence did not show anything more than brief or occasional visits.” But in the State’s view, the jury “accept[ed] the more logical conclusion— Vulich was living with his girlfriend.” We agree with the State. The record shows that Vulich’s “visits” to the home were neither brief nor occasional.1 A neighbor who lived across the alley testified that she saw Vulich there “[a]lmost every day.” Vulich told her that he was getting a divorce and that he moved his truck at night because he did not want his wife to know where he was staying. Because she went to bed early, the neighbor 1 Because of this conclusion, Vulich’s argument that “[t]here was no evidence that he was informed or understood” that “occasionally visit[ing] his girlfriend’s home . . . triggered a duty to register either a new residence or a temporary lodging” fails. Cf. State v. Adams, No. 09–1499, 2010 WL 3894440, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2010) (finding there was “no evidence” in a “very limited, two-page, agreed-upon record” that the defendant had been “informed of the duty to register within five days of changing residence”). 5 testified that she did not know whether Vulich was there overnight. But Forest City police officers who were patrolling the house confirmed that he was, as did footage from the pole camera. One officer noted the truck was there on November 7 at 1:38 a.m., 3:09 a.m., 5:02 a.m., and again at 8:55 p.m. On November 8, the officer saw the truck at 2:10 a.m., 5:02 a.m., and 6:37 a.m. He also saw the truck on November 14 at 9:58 p.m. and again on November 16 at 1:13 a.m. Another officer documented that the truck was at the house on November 21 at 2:19 a.m., 3:59 a.m., and 6:32 a.m. Despite this evidence, Vulich contends that he did not establish a residence in Forest City because he “maintained his primary, registered residence in Leland,” and he did not have a key to Barnett’s house or receive mail there. On the first point, the Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that “a sex offender may have more than one residence that needs to be registered with the local county sheriff.” State v. Uranga, 31 N.W.3d 358, 366 (Iowa 2026). That is true “regardless of whether the offender declares or characterizes such place as the residence of the offender.” Iowa Code § 692A.101(24). As for Vulich’s second point, our statute provides that a sex offender can “habitually live” at a “place other than a mailing address or primary address.” Iowa Code § 692A.101(13) (defining “habitually lives”). While Vulich may not have had a key to the Forest City house, he came and went as he pleased. Although Barnett and her children denied that Vulich lived with them or slept at their house—maintaining that he was instead there fixing things, playing games, or watching movies—the jury was free to reject that testimony. See State v. Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d 247, 256 (Iowa 2022) (“It is . . . for the jury to decide which evidence to accept or reject.”). The jury was also free to reject Barnett’s explanations for the items that were found at her 6 house, including Vulich’s watch, socks, underwear, and receipt in her bedroom, along with his dog and trailer. “It is not our place to resolve conflicts in the evidence, to pass upon the credibility of witnesses, to determine the plausibility of explanations, or to weigh the evidence; such matters are for the jury.” Id. (cleaned up). When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Vulich resided at the unregistered Forest City address. See State v. Youmans, No. 14-1305, 2015 WL 7019012, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015) (finding sufficient evidence that a sex offender established a second residence from neighbors’ observations of him regularly staying at his girlfriend’s house and performing everyday tasks there). B. Child Endangerment Vulich next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of child endangerment under Iowa Code section 726.6(2), which prohibits a person who is required to register for a sex offense against a minor from knowingly having “control of a minor” or “unsupervised access to a minor.” Vulich argues the State “presented no proof that [he] ever assumed responsibility for [a] child’s welfare, provided care, or exercised disciplinary authority.” Without evidence “of a custodial or supervisory relationship,” Vulich contends “the State failed to establish a required element of the offense.” We disagree. Vulich’s argument ignores that section 726.6(2) can be violated by a sex offender who “knowingly has unsupervised access to a minor.” As discussed above, Vulich was in the same home as C.S. at all hours, including overnight. While Barnett and her children insisted that an adult was always 7 present, the jury did not have to accept that testimony. See Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d at 256. In fact, Barnett acknowledged that she did not follow Vulich around the house and that “[t]here wasn’t an adult in every room.” A rational trier of fact could legitimately infer from this evidence that Vulich had unsupervised access to C.S. There was also sufficient evidence that Vulich had control of C.S. See State v. Anspach, 627 N.W.2d 227, 234–35 (Iowa 2001) (defining “control” as used in Iowa Code section 726.6(1) as “exercis[ing] authority or dominating influence over” another or “the state of having restricting or governing power over someone” (citations omitted)). The child’s bus driver testified that every time he picked C.S. up in November, Vulich walked him out to the school’s van. No other adult was present. The driver testified that when C.S. was late one morning, he knocked on the door and Vulich answered, telling the driver, “[W]e overslept, don’t get all over me or I will go before the school board.” The driver saw no one else inside the home. He testified that on a different morning, Vulich told C.S. where to sit in the van. He also testified about an incident when the child was locked out of the house. The driver called Vulich, who told him that it was okay to leave C.S. there. We agree with the State that “[a] reasonable jury could find that Vulich—who was bringing C.S. out to the van, telling him where to sit, giving permission for him to be left unattended, and threatening school board action on his behalf—had control of him.” C. Internet Identifier As part of his registry duties, Vulich had to provide all “relevant information” and any changes in that information to the sheriff. Chapter 692A lists twenty-one categories of relevant information. See Iowa 8 Code § 692A.101(23)(a). One of those categories requires the disclosure of “internet identifiers,” which is defined as an electronic mail address, instant message address or identifier, or any other designation or moniker used for self-identification during internet communication or posting, including all designations used for the purpose of routing or self-identification in internet communications or postings. Id. § 692A.101(15). Vulich does not dispute that the Quora account falls within this category of relevant information. Instead, he contends the State failed to prove the account belonged to him, arguing “the superficial fact that the username contained his name” does not “establish authorship or use.” But the State’s proof was not limited to the username for the account. The profile picture on the account was a photo of Vulich. And the last comment on the account, which stated that it was “added by Zach Vulich” in April 2023, talked about Vulich being pulled over for a traffic offense. Deputy Spooner verified that Vulich was the subject of a traffic stop about two weeks before that post. The jury was entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence to reach its verdict. See Brimmer, 983 N.W.2d at 256 (recognizing that “circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence”). And these circumstances support a rational inference that the Quora account belonged to Vulich. Beyond ownership of the account, Vulich also argues that the “record contains no indication that he received instruction or written notice advising that old, inactive, or informational accounts such as Quora must be registered.” He contends the statute requires proof that he “knowingly failed to comply, not merely that an account bearing his name existed somewhere 9 online.” While Vulich is correct that knowledge is a necessary element of the offense,2 he is wrong about what the record shows. Deputy Spooner testified that every time he met with Vulich—four times a year—they reviewed his internet registration requirements, which included email, social media, and gaming accounts. Vulich had registered five or six of those accounts with the sheriff. Deputy Spooner testified that at each check-in, he gave Vulich a packet with “every rule” that he had to follow. Based on this evidence, we conclude the State met its burden of proof on the knowledge element. See State v. Widner, No. 21-0627, 2022 WL 1486505, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2022) (finding the evidence supported a determination that the defendant “knew, or at least reasonably should have known, about the registration requirement from the times he was presented the documentation containing the statutory requirements his registration status entailed”); State v. Krugle, No. 02-0083, 2002 WL 31883017, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2002) (finding evidence of defendant’s “prior registrations” was “sufficient to establish that he knew of his obligations under chapter 692A”). AFFIRMED. 2 The jury was instructed without objection that to find Vulich guilty of this count, the State had to prove that he “knowingly failed to register or notify” the sheriff “of his new or changed internet identifier (social media account with Quora) within five days.” See Iowa Code § 692A.111(1) (“[A] violation occurs when a sex offender knows or reasonably should know of the duty to fulfill a requirement specified in this chapter as referenced in the offense charged.”). 10