Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 10-21-2018
Case Style:
State of Iowa v. Paul R. Knudsen
Case Number: 17-0531
Judge: Richard G. Blane, II
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General
Defendant's Attorney: Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant
Appellate Defender
Description:
Three counts of
sexual abuse in the third degree and one count of lascivious conduct with a minor
Morelaw Internet Marketing
National Find A Lawyer Directory
Knudsen was charged by trial information with three counts of sexual abuse
in the third degree (counts I, II, and III) and one count of lascivious conduct with a
minor (count IV). Each of the three counts of sexual abuse involved the same
minor child, A.M., who lived in the same home as Knudsen. The dates the events
were alleged to have occurred and A.M.’s age at the time of the events differed.
In count IV, it was alleged that between September 8, 2009 and August 2012,
Knudsen forced, persuaded, or coerced A.L., a minor who Knudsen was in a
position of authority over, to disrobe or partially disrobe for the purpose of satisfying
at least one of their sexual desires. For sentencing-enhancement purposes, it was
additionally alleged that Knudsen had been previously convicted of sexual abuse.
Leading up to the jury trial, the State filed a motion to strike certain defense
witnesses and a motion in limine. In its motion to strike witnesses, the State asked
3
the court to prevent Hollinda Wakefield from testifying at trial, maintaining that
based on the questions asked of Wakefield in her deposition, Knudsen
“clearly . . . intends to call this witness solely to comment on the credibility of the
witnesses through expert testimony.” In his response to the State’s motion,
Knudsen maintained he wanted to call Wakefield as an expert in the field of child
sexual abuse and claimed she would testify to a number of things, including “how
unusual it would be for a mother to be involved in a three way sexual relationship
with her daughter and [Knudsen].”
In its motion in limine, the State asked the court to direct the defense not to
refer at any stage of the trial to “[a]ny evidence regarding either of the victims’ past
sexual history or any other matters in violation of Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412,”
including A.M.’s “prior sexual abuse by other family members.” Knudsen
responded:
The defense intends to explore the past sexual assaults of the two alleged victims in this case. The defense does not intend to explore the details of the assaults, or to violate the tenants of the rape/shield laws, but does intend to ask each alleged victim the following: a. Were you sexually assaulted in the past? b. Did this sexual assault occur while Paul Knudsen was married to your mother? c. Who committed the sexual assault? d. Did you report the sexual assault to your mother and [Knudsen]? e. Did they support you in your allegations? f. Did they report your allegations to law enforcement? g. Was the perpetrator prosecuted? h. Was the perpetrator convicted? i. Were you aware of the punishment awarded the perpetrator? j. At the time you made allegations against the prior perpetrators, did you make any accusations against either your mother or [Knudsen]?
4
k. Have you made any other allegations of sexual abuse since the allegations against Paul Knudsen? l. Did those allegations result in charges against these alleged perpetrators?
After a joint hearing on the pretrial motions, the court issued a written ruling
in which the court found “Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412, otherwise known as the
rape shield law, to be dispositive” on the issue of whether Knudsen could ask the
complaining witnesses about their experiences involving prior sexual abuse by
family members. In sustaining the State’s motion in limine, the court “considered
the arguments and proposed evidence by the defense, and finds, however
relevant, that the probative value of such evidence fails to outweigh the danger of
unfair prejudice and as such the evidence is not admissible.” Regarding the
State’s motion to strike defense witness Wakefield, the court did not prevent the
witness from testifying completely but did outline areas about which Wakefield was
prevented from testifying. The court ruled that Wakefield could not testify that a
three-way sexual encounter involving a mother, her daughter, and Knudsen would
be “unusual” or “rare,” stating:
First and foremost, with the evidence presented or arguments of counsel thus far, the Court finds the witness lacks any expertise in her opinion relating to the purported testimony. Even if qualified as an expert in the area in question, the Court does not find any testimony from the witness to be permissible, nor does it find any such testimony would aid the finder of fact in this matter. Consequently, the [S]tate’s motion relating to any questions of that nature shall be sustained.
The jury trial took place over several days in February 2017. During the
testimony of the nurse who performed a sexual-assault examination on A.M., the
nurse was asked what type of injuries she is looking for during the exam. She
testified:
5
Well, you know, if there is any old injury that may have healed. Sometimes you’ll see kind of some scarring in different areas. You may see in the hymen there may be a healed we call it a transection or which is where the hymen may have been torn and then healed but that split is still there. You may have what’s called a cleft, which is kind of where it’s been worn away but it’s not necessarily been completely split. You may have some—if it’s an acute type of thing you may see some bleeding, you may see some abrasions, which is kind of a roughening of the skin where you might have some redness or some swelling, or you might even see some bruising depending on what happened. So those are all the kinds of things that we’re looking for when we’re doing that.
When asked if she “note[d] anything that may be considered an injury” while
examining A.M., the nurse testified, “Yes. . . . I described it as a cleft.” The State
admitted into evidence and published to the jury four pictures of A.M.’s hymen that
were taken during the physical exam. The nurse also opined that the cleft could
be “normal for that person’s body to look like that”—a “normal variation.”
Following the nurse’s testimony, the court reconsidered its prior ruling on
the State’s motion in limine regarding whether the defense could mention or ask
questions about prior sexual abuse A.M. had experienced. In reconsidering its
prior ruling, the court stated:
[T]he court heard testimony yesterday and received . . . [e]xhibits . . . regarding the colposcopic examination and photographs that depict what could be construed as injury to the female victim’s hymen. Obviously that’s debatable, but clearly the State’s intention is to offer that for the purposes of showing a potential source of injury or trauma as a result of penetration. . . . . . . . The issue is that during the course of all of that going on, it became apparent to the court that the incident involving [a family member who sexually abused A.M.] obviously preceded or theoretically preceded this; that there is, based on that then, an argument to be made that the source of the injury contained in the photographs that have been introduced could be from penetration from [the family member]. [The family member] was, in fact,
6
convicted of sex abuse and that those allegations did involve penetration of the same victim. Flashing back to pretrial motions that we had, the court did sustain the State’s motion in limine relating to rape shield. . . . [T]he Court was not aware that there was going to be the introduction of evidence relating to this injury; and more importantly, the Court was not aware of the fact that [the family member] could have been a potential source of this injury or trauma. I know it now. And knowing that now, I think I have no choice but to reconsider my [ruling on the] motion in limine. . . . [I]t would be my intention that my ruling remains the same. That to the extent that the defense wants to introduce evidence, make argument, anything regarding the victim’s past sexual behavior or past sexual encounters, victimization, however you want to characterize it, that does not open the door to the defense making any argument regarding her propensity to accuse people. It does not open any argument to her propensity to fantasize or anything that can be construed that these allegations against this defendant are false. However, I think that this is quintessential exception, the injury itself is a quintessential exception to the rape shield provisions in that the defense ought to be able to show an alternative source of this injury. . . . . . . The parties, either side, particularly the defense can explore the fact that the source of injury as identified in the exhibits and from the testimony of [the nurse] could have come from an alternative trauma; that trauma being an abuse that occurred earlier, sometime in 2012 or at least in the time frame of around 2012. The parties know better the actual duration of it and when it’s alleged again; and that it was more than one occasion. And so that it was an ongoing type of thing as opposed to an isolated incident, which is, again, consistent with rebutting, essentially, any testimony that came from [the nurse]. But that’s the sum and substance what I believe is relevant and could come in consistent with the rape shield 412 rule.
Later, Knudsen asked A.M. if she had “intercourse voluntarily or involuntarily” with
someone other than Knudsen prior to 2014, if it occurred on multiple occasions,
and if it preceded the time when she made allegations against Knudsen. A.M.
answered “yes” to each question. During redirect, the State also asked A.M.
questions about the prior abuse, asking when she testified that she had engaged
in sexual intercourse multiple times if she was referencing “consensual or
7
nonconsensual priors.” A.M. testified, “Nonconsensual.” Later, during his closing
argument, Knudsen revisited the issue, stating:
The State put up some really wonderful intimate photographs of [A.M.’s] hymen and tried to get you to believe that, first of all, the hymen was injured; and that Paul Knudsen was the one who injured it. What do you really know? One, [the nurse] said that could be just a typical normal hymen. She can’t say that that was—that that was something that was caused by sex abuse. And the most important other thing she said is that even if it were sex abuse, she can’t say that it was Paul Knudsen. Now weren’t you surprised when [A.M.] was testifying to find out that before these allegations with Paul Knudsen came up that she had been sexually abused by vaginal intercourse by somebody else? Not Paul Knudsen? Was that a surprise to you? I would think it probably was because the state wanted you to think that it was Paul who did this if it wasn’t a normal hymen. The bottom line is you don’t know. You can’t take anything out of that physical exam that puts any, any kind of negative connotation on my client. Because there are three potential possibilities and him being a sexual abuser is only one. And you know if [A.M.] was sexually abused prior to that on multiple occasions, that the likelihood, if that’s an injury, came from that person.
A.M. testified she was born in January 2000. When she was fourteen and
a freshman in high school, in November 2014, A.M. told her therapist that Knudsen
had been sexually abusing her. A.M. testified the abuse happened more than
once, that she was unsure how many times it occurred, and that it occurred a
number of places in the family home, including her “bedroom, the bathroom, the
upstairs bathroom, the living room, the laundry room, and sometimes his
bedroom”; in Knudsen’s car; and at the property of Knudsen’s family member. She
testified Knudsen had most recently abused her only a day or two before she told
her therapist and she remembered that the abuse also occurred when she was in
seventh grade and eighth grade. A.M. testified she could not remember if Knudsen
8
abused her when she was in sixth grade. When asked to describe what she meant
when she said sexual abuse, A.M. testified, “His penis would touch my vagina, my
mouth, my hands.” She later clarified Knudsen’s penis entered her vagina and
stated she remembered that occurring when she was a freshman and in eighth
grade but did not remember if it happened when she was in seventh grade. She
also testified that she remembered Knudsen forcing her to perform oral sex on him
before he would give her a ride to cheerleading practice; A.M. participated in
cheerleading when she was in eighth grade.
A.L. testified about an instance when Knudsen forced him to go to the
basement of the family home and have sex with A.M while Knudsen also forced
A.M. to perform sex acts on him. A.L. testified Knudsen made him remove his
clothing during this incident.
The jury found Knudsen guilty of each of the four charges. Knudsen
indicated that rather than have a second trial regarding whether he was the
individual who was previously convicted of sexual abuse in the third degree,
Knudsen would stipulate that the sentencing enhancements applied to him.
Because of his prior conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree, each of
Knudsen’s convictions for counts I, II, and III were enhanced to a class “A” felony.
See Iowa Code § 902.14(1)(b) (2015).1 The convictions each carried a mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole unless the governor
commutes the sentence, and Knudsen was sentenced accordingly. See Iowa
1 The year the crimes were alleged to have occurred varied. Because there was no substantive change in the relevant code sections between the years the acts were alleged to have occurred and the time Knudsen was formally charged—in 2015—we refer to 2015 Iowa Code throughout.
9
Code § 902.1(1). Additionally, the sentence for count IV was doubled, from one
year to two years. See Iowa Code § 901A.2(1).
Knudsen appeals.
II. Discussion.
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Knudsen maintains there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction
for count II of sexual abuse in the third degree. We review challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence for correction of errors at law. State v. Sanford, 814
N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012). In considering his challenge, we “consider all of the
record evidence viewed ‘in the light most favorable to the State, including all
reasonable inferences that may be fairly drawn from the evidence.’” Id. (citation
omitted).
1. Error Preservation.
“To preserve error on a claim of insufficient evidence for appellate review in
a criminal case, the defendant must make a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial
that identifies the specific grounds raised on appeal.” State v. Truesdell, 679
N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2004). The State maintains Knudsen failed to preserve
error on this issue. We disagree. On appeal, Knudsen challenges whether the
State provided sufficient evidence to establish that the sex act occurred before
A.M. turned fourteen. See Iowa Code § 709.4(1)(b)(2) (defining sexual abuse in
the third degree as a person committing a sex act upon a person who is twelve or
thirteen years of age). At the time Knudsen moved for judgment of acquittal, he
stated, “We don’t believe that the State’s witnesses were able to set in any
timelines or specific timelines that would show when these offenses or these
10
alleged offenses would have happened.” The court denied Knudsen’s motion,
stating that a fact question had been generated as to whether a sex act occurred
upon A.M. during the required time frame,2 so it was proper for the jury to decide
the issue.
2. Merits.
“The State has the burden to prove every fact necessary to constitute the
crime with which the defendant is charged, and the evidence presented must raise
a fair inference of guilt and do more than create speculation, suspicion, or
conjecture.” State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004). Here, the jury
instructions for count II required the State to establish:
1. Between September 8, 2009 and August 2012, the defendant performed a sex act on [A.M.]. 2. The defendant performed the sex act while [A.M.] was under the age of 14 years. 3. The defendant and [A.M.] were not then living together as husband and wife.
2 We acknowledge that the court referenced the dates listed in the trial information when it stated there was a fact question about whether the sex act occurred during the required time frame. However, the dates included on the trial information are not an element of the crime. See State v. Brown, 400 N.W.2d 74, 77 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) (“The date fixed in the indictment or information for the commission of a crime is not material, and a conviction can be returned upon any date within the statute of limitations.”). The age of A.M. at the time of the act is a necessary element. See Iowa Code § 709.4(1)(b)(2). Moreover, if error was not preserved, Knudsen asks us to consider the claim under the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework, which relies upon the same analysis. See Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d at 616 (“A claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on the failure of counsel to raise a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction is a matter that normally can be decided on direct appeal. Clearly, if the record in this case fails to reveal substantial evidence to support the convictions, counsel was ineffective for failing to properly raise the issue and prejudice resulted. On the other hand, if the record reveals substantial evidence, counsel’s failure to raise the claim of error could not be prejudicial.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Schories, 827 N.W.2d 659, 664–65 (Iowa 2013) (“In any event, the question of preservation hardly matters because [the defendant] may raise the issue through a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . [I]n order to determine the ineffectiveness issue on this appeal, we are only required to determine whether the motion would have been meritorious even if the sufficiency of the evidence challenge had not been preserved.”).
11
Knudsen’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence focuses on A.M.s
testimony that Knudsen forced her to perform oral sex on him before he would give
her a ride to cheerleading practice. Knudsen argues that because A.M.’s
testimony only narrowed the timing of these incidents down to while she was in
eighth grade, she could have been either thirteen or fourteen years of age, as she
turned fourteen in January during that school year.
A.M. testified she was a cheerleader for football, basketball, and wrestling.
In its closing, the State referred to them as “fall sports,” but there is no evidence in
the record of what dates during eighth grade A.M. was a cheerleader; we cannot
say whether these sports took place only in the fall of 2013 or if they also continued
into January 2014, after A.M. turned fourteen. However, while the State argued
the jury should find Knudsen guilty of count II based on this specific factual
scenario, Knudsen has not provided, and we have not found, any authority that the
jury was then required to consider solely this incident of abuse in determining if
Knudsen was guilty of count II of sexual abuse in the third degree.
A.M. testified she was sexually abused by Knudsen while she was in
seventh grade—during which she was always under the age of fourteen. She
clarified that by sexually abused, she meant “[h]is penis would touch my vagina,
my mouth, my hands.” See Iowa Code § 702.17(1), (2), (3) (defining “sex act” as
“[p]entration of the penis into the vagina,” “[c]ontact between the mouth and
genitalia,” and “[c]ontact between the finger or hand of one person and the genitalia
. . . of another”). Based upon our review of the record evidence, particularly the
testimony of both A.M. and A.L., there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
verdicts on each count. See State v. Hildreth, 582 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Iowa 1998)
12
(finding the victim’s testimony sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of the
defendant’s guilt); State v. Constable, 505 N.W.2d 473, 478-9 (Iowa 1993) (viewing
the testimony in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence existed
upon which a jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed
sex acts). The trial court properly denied Knudsen’s motion for judgment of
acquittal.
B. Rape-Shield Law.
Knudsen maintains he should have been allowed to introduce evidence that
A.M. had previously made allegations of sexual abuse to her mother and Knudsen
about a different family member and how Knudsen and the mother reacted to the
allegations. He claims such information does not fall within the rape-shield
prohibition against “other sexual behavior,”3 contained in Iowa Rule of Evidence
5.412. Alternatively, he maintains that even if the information falls within the
prohibition, the court should have admitted it under the exception contained in rule
5.412(b)(1)(C), which allows the admission of evidence of “other sexual behavior”
in criminal cases where the exclusion of the evidence “would violate the
defendant’s constitutional rights.”
We generally review trial court rulings on admissibility of evidence under
rule 5.412 for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 407
(Iowa 2006). However, to the extent that Knudsen alleges the evidence is
3 Before January 1, 2017, the rule referenced “past sexual behavior” instead of “other sexual behavior.” The changed language of “other sexual behavior” now mirrors that of the federal rule. Compare Fed. R. Evid. 412, with Iowa R. Evid. 5.412. Trial was held in February 2017.
13
admissible under the exception invoking his constitutional rights, we review de
novo. See State v. Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d 493, 499 (Iowa 1997).
1. Error Preservation.
The State maintains Knudsen only preserved error to the evidentiary
challenge, asserting the “constitutional dimension” of his claim was not raised
below and “[a] defendant cannot amplify or change the objection on appeal.” State
v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Iowa 1995). As Knudsen responds, the
evidentiary rule incorporates the constitutional safeguard. See Iowa R. Evid.
5.412(b)(1)(C) (stating the court may admit evidence whose exclusion would
violate the defendant’s constitutional rights). And the district court apparently
considered whether Knudsen’s constitutional rights required the admission of the
evidence, as it stated it considered the “proposed evidence by the defense, and
finds, however relevant, that the probative value of such evidence fails to outweigh
the danger of unfair prejudice and as such the evidence is not admissible.” See
Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(c)(2)(C) (requiring the court, when it determines that the offer
of proof contains evidence described in the listed exceptions in rule 5.412(b), to
determine if the evidence is admissible by determining if the evidence is relevant
and if the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice). Error is
preserved.
2. Merits.
The rape-shield law, as Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412 is otherwise known, is
an exception to the rule that relevant evidence is generally admissible. State v.
Clarke, 343 N.W.2d 158, 160–61 (Iowa 1984). The rule prohibits the admission of
“[e]vidence of a victim’s other sexual behavior.” See Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(1)(2).
14
The purpose is “to protect the victim’s privacy, encourage the reporting and
prosecution of sex offenses, and prevent the parties from delving into distractive,
irrelevant matters.” Alberts, 722 N.W.2d at 409.
In determining what evidence the rape-shield law prohibits, our supreme
court has previously defined “past sexual behavior”4 as
a volitional or non-volitional physical act that the victim has performed for the purpose of the sexual stimulation or gratification of either the victim or another person or an act that is sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or sexual contact, or an attempt to engage in such an act, between the victim and another person.
Id. at 408 (citation omitted). The definition “clearly encompasses prior sexual
abuse perpetrated upon the victim.” State v. Jones, 490 N.W.2d 787, 790 (Iowa
1992), overruled on other grounds by State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 826 (Iowa
2017).
In determining whether the admission of evidence is prohibited by the rule,
we do not consider the defendant’s motive for introducing the evidence. See
Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d at 497. “An accused may attempt to offer evidence of the
victim’s past sexual behavior either to confront real evidence . . . or to impugn the
victim’s character. In either case, the victim’s privacy is invaded and for that
reasons the rule applies.” Id.
In arguing that the evidence of A.M. telling her parents about prior sexual
abuse and their responses to that information should have been admitted at trial,
Knudsen tries to delineate between the prior sexual abuse and A.M.’s reporting of
4 We assume the change in language from “past sexual behavior” to “other sexual behavior” was not meant to cause a substantive change in the interpretation of the rule.
15
the abuse. But Knudsen’s argument creates a distinction without a difference, as
the prior sexual abuse is at the basis of the evidence he wishes to introduce. And
while the defendant’s motivation for trying to introduce the evidence cannot cure
the issue, here, even Knudsen’s stated reason for introducing the evidence is at
odds with the purpose of the rule. During the hearing on the motion in limine,
Knudsen stated that he wanted to introduce the evidence “to challenge her
credibility.” See, e.g., State v. Awbery, 367 P.3d 346, 349 (Mont. 2016) (noting
rape-shield laws “evolved from society’s recognition that a rape victim’s prior
sexual history is irrelevant to issues of consent or the victim’s propensity for
truthfulness”). The evidence that A.M. had been sexually abused previously, had
told her mother and Knudsen about the abuse, and their responses to the
information falls within the rape-shield prohibition against the admission of “other
sexual history.”
Next, we must consider whether the evidence should have been admitted
anyway, under an exception to the rape-shield law. We begin by noting that some
evidence of the previous sexual abuse that A.M. endured was made known to the
jury, through questions asked of A.M. by the both State and Knudsen. In a
reconsideration of its ruling on the motion in limine, the court determined the
evidence A.M. had been sexually abused vaginally before the sexual assault nurse
examined her regarding her allegations of abuse of Knudsen was admissible to
show the cleft the nurse noted may have been an injury attributable to someone
other than Knudsen. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(b)(1)(A) (allowing the court to admit
“[e]vidence of specific instances of a victim’s sexual behavior, if offered to prove
16
that someone other than the defendant was the source of . . . injury, or other
physical evidence”).
Knudsen challenges the court’s ruling that he could not expand the scope
of the questioning about the prior sexual abuse in order to introduce evidence that
A.M. had reported the prior abuse to her mother and Knudsen and they had
supported her through a criminal trial, which ultimately resulted in the conviction of
a family member. Knudsen raised a number of reasons why he believed the
evidence was relevant and probative during his many challenges to the court’s
ruling, including that Knudsen’s support of A.M.’s previous report of sexual abuse
made it less likely Knudsen sexually abused A.M. and that A.M.’s ability and
willingness to report the previous instances of sexual abuse made it less likely to
believe her reasons for not reporting Knudsen’s sexual abuse sooner—thereby
calling into question her credibility about the allegations in general.
In determining if the district court should have allowed the broader scope of
evidence Knudsen advocates for under the exception to the rape-shield law, we
apply “a balancing test, identical to that contained in rule 5.403.” See State v.
Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 449 (Iowa 2014), overruled on other grounds by Alcala
v. Marriott Int’l., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 708 n.3 (Iowa 2016). Pursuant to rule 5.403,
“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by a danger” of unfair prejudice. When asked to consider the
evidence, the district court found it was not even relevant, stating:
Whether [A.M.’s] been through it before or not, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that she can be scared about [reporting the abuse] against [Knudsen]; or the fact that she’s been through it before doesn’t necessarily mitigate the fact that it would be embarrassing in this particular circumstance again; or for any of the other reasons
17
she’s indicated on the record here; and I must balance what you’re telling me with that of the issues that are aimed to be protected by this rule, . . . and in doing that, again, I don’t find that it’s appropriate when conducting the balancing test to allow it in.
We agree with the district court. Although Knudsen assumes otherwise, neither
A.M.’s willingness to report previous sexual abuse nor Knudsen’s reaction to it
make it more or less likely that Knudsen sexually abused A.M. See Iowa R. Evid.
5.401 (providing evidence is relevant if it “has any tendency to make a fact more
or less probable than it would be without the evidence”). Moreover, even if it is
relevant, the probative value of the evidence Knudsen wants to admit is
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Knudsen is correct that credibility is
an important issue in a sexual abuse case, but that does not mean it is his
constitutional right to place the victim on trial. See Awbery, 367 P.3d at 349 (stating
the rape shield law is “designed to prevent the trial of the charge against the
defendant from becoming a trial of the victim’s prior sexual conduct”). Knudsen
has not convinced us the expanded scope of evidence he argues was admissible
falls within the “narrow exception” to the rape-shield law. See State v. Jeffries, 417
N.W.2d 237, 239 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
C. Defense Expert.
Knudsen challenges the district court’s evidentiary ruling prohibiting
Hollinda Wakefield from testifying that three-way sexual abuse interactions
involving a child and the child’s mother are rare. The district court excluded the
evidence for two reasons; it found Knudsen had failed to establish Wakefield was
an expert in the area in question and found the evidence to be impermissible as
an expert indirectly commenting on the credibility of the witness.
18
We generally review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. See
State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 675 (Iowa 2014).
While Iowa is committed to a liberal view on the admission of expert
testimony, “expert testimony is not admissible merely to bolster credibility.” State
v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 676 (Iowa 2014). “Our system of justice vests the jury
with the function in determining credibility.” Id. “[W]hen an expert comments,
directly or indirectly, on a witness’s credibility, the expert is giving his or her
scientific certainty stamp of approval on the testimony even though an expert
cannot accurately opine when a witness is telling the truth.” Id. at 677.
While Knudsen maintains Wakefield’s testimony would have aided the jury
in making its own credibility determination, we believe the testimony Knudsen
wanted to elicit “go[es] a step beyond merely aiding the fact finder in understanding
the evidence and actually invade[s] the exclusive domain of the jury.” State v.
Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91, 95 (Iowa 1986). Knudsen’s purpose in calling Wakefield
to make the statement was to convince the jury A.M. was not credible, as it is “rare”
for abuse to happen as A.M. described. Thus, even if Wakefield was qualified as
an expert in the area in question, her testimony about the rate of occurrence of
sexual abuse that A.M. alleged would be impermissible as it constitutes indirect
statements on the credibility of the complaining witness. “[W]eighing the
truthfulness of a witness is a matter reserved exclusively to the fact finder.” Id.
“[O]ur system of justice does not rely upon statistical probability of certain
conduct absent scientifically proven principles.” State v. Pitsenbarger, 14-0060,
2015 WL 1815989, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2015). The court did not abuse
19
its discretion when it prevented the defense’s expert from using rate of occurrence
to question the credibility of A.M.
D. Sentencing Enhancements.
Knudsen maintains his stipulation to his prior conviction for sexual abuse in
the third degree and the resulting enhancements were not entered into knowingly
and voluntarily, as the colloquy with the court failed to satisfy certain requirements.
See State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 45–47 (Iowa 2017).
In Harrington, our supreme court outlined what steps the district court must
take during a stipulation colloquy to ensure the stipulation is entered into knowingly
and voluntarily. 893 N.W.2d at 45–47. Although Harrington was not yet filed at
the time of Knudsen’s colloquy, we have applied the requirements of the
enhanced-penalty hearing retroactively. See State v. Allie, No. 17-0190, 2018 WL
739297, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2018); see also State v. Miller, No. 16-2110,
2018 WL 1099580, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2018). We apply the error
preservation requirement of filing a motion in arrest of judgment prospectively only.
See State v. Steiger, 903 N.W.2d 169, 170 (Iowa 2017).
It is undisputed that the court failed to ensure Knudsen’s prior conviction
was obtained while he was either represented by counsel or had knowingly and
voluntarily waived the right to counsel. See Harrington, 893 N.W.2d at 45.
Additionally, the court did not inform Knudsen that an enhancement doubled the
maximum period of incarceration on count IV—from one year to two years—and
that the sentence for counts I, II, and III carried a mandatory minimum of life
sentence without the eligibility of parole. See id. at 45–46.
20
Still, the State argues we should not grant Knudsen the requested relief
because he “invited error” when the court asked if there was anything that had
been omitted, to which Knudsen stated, “No, Your Honor,” Additionally, the State
argues Knudsen was not prejudiced by the failures in the colloquy. As to the
State’s first argument, the State has provided no authority supporting the claim
that a defendant’s inability to find immediate fault with the court’s colloquy prevents
the defendant from challenging it later. It is a common practice to ask such a
question at the end of a colloquy—one we find no fault with, as it may help prevent
simple errors of oversight.5 But if the State’s assertion is correct, it would behoove
defendants not to answer the court’s question, thereby actually inviting the error
the State asserts Knudsen invited. Moreover, as Harrington was not yet decided
at the time of Knudsen’s stipulation, Knudsen may not, at the time he was asked,
have found any error with the court’s colloquy. As to the State’s argument that
Knudsen is not entitled to relief because he suffered no prejudice, the supreme
court has already rejected this argument. See id. at 43 n.2 (“The question on
appeal is not whether [the defendant] suffered no prejudice because evidence
existed to establish the prior convictions, but whether [he] knowingly and
voluntarily admitted the prior conviction.”). “In the absence of a substantially
compliant colloquy, it cannot be said the defendant’s stipulation of the prior
convictions was knowing and voluntary.” Allie, 2018 WL 739297, at *6. “Prejudice
is simply immaterial to the question presented.” Id.
5 The State was asked the same question and also replied in the negative.
21
Because the district court did not comply with the Harrington requirements
for the enhancement stipulation colloquy, we affirm the convictions, but “reverse
the judgment[s] and sentence[s] of the district court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion or, if [Knudsen] denies the prior convictions or their
validity, for trial on whether he meets the requirements” of the enhancements
pursuant to section 902.14(1)(b). See Harrington, 893 N.W.2d at 48.
Outcome: Substantial evidence supports Knudsen’s challenged conviction for sexual
abuse in the third degree, the district court did not wrongly apply the rape-shield law to prevent the further introduction of evidence regarding prior sexual abuse perpetrated against A.M., and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prevented the defense’s proposed expert from testifying how “rare” the type of sexual abuse described by A.M. occurs. We affirm his convictions for the three counts of sexual abuse in the third degree and one count of lascivious conduct with a minor. However, because we cannot say Knudsen entered into the prior offense stipulation knowingly and voluntarily, we reverse the enhancement judgments and sentences of the district court. On remand, Knudsen may enter into a new stipulation regarding the prior offense compliant with Harrington or may choose to proceed to trial to determine whether he meets the enhancement requirements.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: