IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1140 Filed February 5, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT ALLEN FISHER JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.
A criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Michelle E. Rabe (until
withdrawal) and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
Robert Allen Fisher Jr. appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the
second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding substantial
evidence supports the conviction, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In March 2023, the district court held a bench trial of Fisher considering two
charged offenses. The district court issued a thorough, detailed opinion, evincing
a careful consideration of the evidence and law. The court found Fisher guilty of
sexual abuse in the second degree perpetrated against the minor child L.L. and
not guilty of the second offense. We therefore limit our facts to those relevant to
the appealed conviction.
From 2012 to 2015, Fisher was in a romantic relationship with A.L., and
lived with her and her two children: S.L. and L.L. L.L. was between three and six
years old. The children would stay home with Fisher while their mother was at
work. L.L. testified when she was “five, six, or seven,” she and Fisher would go to
her bedroom, he would pull down his pants and his underwear, sit on the floor with
his legs in front of him with her next to him, touch his private parts, and then touch
hers. She described seeing Fisher’s hand move on himself and what he called
“happy juice” coming out. She further explained when Fisher touched her it was
skin-to-skin. Fisher’s touching of her genital area made L.L. need to urinate. When
her mother got home from work, they would stop, get dressed, and go out acting
like nothing happened. L.L. could not remember how far down Fisher pulled his
pants, or whether he used one or two hands. But she did remember Fisher making
threats about hurting her and her mother. 3
L.L. said one time when Fisher was touching her, S.L. came into the
bedroom and Fisher told him to pull down his pants, which he did. But S.L. then
redressed and “left awkwardly.” S.L. also testified, describing Fisher leaning
against a mattress pulled over the bed frame and touching himself, telling S.L. to
take off his clothes, and L.L. was also in the room.
When L.L. was ten or eleven years old, she told her mother what Fisher had
done because it was “eating at” her and making her anxious. At trial, the mother
was able to recall a time she got home early, Fisher “came bolting out” of their
home, “hiking up his pants, hopping on one foot onto the porch”—which she
characterized as “really strange behavior” for Fisher. L.L. was pulling up her pants
when the mother entered the house, but said nothing was going on, she was just
getting dressed. The mother was clear, though, that she never witnessed Fisher
perpetrating any sexual abuse.
Fisher testified, categorically denying perpetrating any sexual abuse.
Fisher, who has been obese since before the relevant time period, told the court
he usually will not sit on the floor because “it’s harder to get up.” He demonstrated
for the court the effort it took to sit on the floor and to get back up, and stated it
was “physically impossible” for him to sit on the floor and masturbate due to a fat
pouch engulfing his penis while sitting. Fisher also shared with the court he has
not worn underwear for many years because it causes chafing.
In a thorough written ruling, the court convicted Fisher of committing a sex
act upon L.L. between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. The court
expressly stated it “found L.L.’s testimony to be credible,” specifically noting her
appearance and demeanor, her behavior on the stand, the age-appropriateness 4
of her answers, and her admitting and not answering questions when she did not
remember. The court considered and discussed all the evidence presented before
reaching its conclusion Fisher committed second degree sexual abuse.
Fisher appeals.
II. Standard of Review
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence proving a
conviction, we review for a correction of errors at law. State v. Fenton, 13 N.W.3d
573, 577 (Iowa 2024). “In jury-waived cases, the findings of fact have the effect of
a special verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence.” State
v. Fordyce, 940 N.W.2d 419, 425 (Iowa 2020) (internal citations omitted). “[W]e
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all legitimate
inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the
record evidence.” Fenton, 13 N.W.3d at 577 (cleaned up).
III. Discussion
Fisher’s sole argument on appeal is L.L.’s testimony was “so inconsistent,
vague, and unreliable that th[e] court should deem it insufficient as a matter of law
to support Fisher’s conviction.” See State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1993). Fisher acknowledges recent supreme court cases have criticized
Smith, but he insists “it remains controlling law” in the absence of an opinion
expressly overruling it. The supreme court has noted Smith is “inconsistent with
the standard of appellate review” requiring “deference to the [factfinder]’s
resolution of disputed factual issues.” State v. Mathis, 971 N.W.2d 514, 518
(Iowa 2022). Without expressly overruling Smith, the court noted even that 5
standard required “fatal contradictions or deficiencies” in the victim’s testimony to
afford any relief.
The details Fisher challenges in L.L.’s testimony include the vague
timeframe of the abuse and lack of specific details, the frequency of abuse, the
delay in reporting, a claim L.L. was remembering abuse by an unnamed other
person, lack of corroboration by the mother, and an assertion L.L. could not be
describing his actions because he does not wear underwear and is physically
unable to complete the described events due to the size of his stomach and penis.
None of these arguments are persuasive.
“Inconsistencies and lack of detail are common in sexual abuse cases and
do not compel a [factfinder] to conclude that the victim is not credible or that there
is insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.” State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d
1, 11 (Iowa 2021); see also State v Parker, No. 22-0491, 2023 WL 7391664, at *2
(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023) (“We do not require total precision from the victim’s
testimony.”). L.L. was very young at the time of the abuse, and several years had
passed between when the abuse occurred and the trial. L.L.’s testimony provided
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1140 Filed February 5, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT ALLEN FISHER JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Justin Lightfoot, Judge.
A criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting
his conviction. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Michelle E. Rabe (until
withdrawal) and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
CARR, Senior Judge.
Robert Allen Fisher Jr. appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the
second degree, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Finding substantial
evidence supports the conviction, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
In March 2023, the district court held a bench trial of Fisher considering two
charged offenses. The district court issued a thorough, detailed opinion, evincing
a careful consideration of the evidence and law. The court found Fisher guilty of
sexual abuse in the second degree perpetrated against the minor child L.L. and
not guilty of the second offense. We therefore limit our facts to those relevant to
the appealed conviction.
From 2012 to 2015, Fisher was in a romantic relationship with A.L., and
lived with her and her two children: S.L. and L.L. L.L. was between three and six
years old. The children would stay home with Fisher while their mother was at
work. L.L. testified when she was “five, six, or seven,” she and Fisher would go to
her bedroom, he would pull down his pants and his underwear, sit on the floor with
his legs in front of him with her next to him, touch his private parts, and then touch
hers. She described seeing Fisher’s hand move on himself and what he called
“happy juice” coming out. She further explained when Fisher touched her it was
skin-to-skin. Fisher’s touching of her genital area made L.L. need to urinate. When
her mother got home from work, they would stop, get dressed, and go out acting
like nothing happened. L.L. could not remember how far down Fisher pulled his
pants, or whether he used one or two hands. But she did remember Fisher making
threats about hurting her and her mother. 3
L.L. said one time when Fisher was touching her, S.L. came into the
bedroom and Fisher told him to pull down his pants, which he did. But S.L. then
redressed and “left awkwardly.” S.L. also testified, describing Fisher leaning
against a mattress pulled over the bed frame and touching himself, telling S.L. to
take off his clothes, and L.L. was also in the room.
When L.L. was ten or eleven years old, she told her mother what Fisher had
done because it was “eating at” her and making her anxious. At trial, the mother
was able to recall a time she got home early, Fisher “came bolting out” of their
home, “hiking up his pants, hopping on one foot onto the porch”—which she
characterized as “really strange behavior” for Fisher. L.L. was pulling up her pants
when the mother entered the house, but said nothing was going on, she was just
getting dressed. The mother was clear, though, that she never witnessed Fisher
perpetrating any sexual abuse.
Fisher testified, categorically denying perpetrating any sexual abuse.
Fisher, who has been obese since before the relevant time period, told the court
he usually will not sit on the floor because “it’s harder to get up.” He demonstrated
for the court the effort it took to sit on the floor and to get back up, and stated it
was “physically impossible” for him to sit on the floor and masturbate due to a fat
pouch engulfing his penis while sitting. Fisher also shared with the court he has
not worn underwear for many years because it causes chafing.
In a thorough written ruling, the court convicted Fisher of committing a sex
act upon L.L. between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014. The court
expressly stated it “found L.L.’s testimony to be credible,” specifically noting her
appearance and demeanor, her behavior on the stand, the age-appropriateness 4
of her answers, and her admitting and not answering questions when she did not
remember. The court considered and discussed all the evidence presented before
reaching its conclusion Fisher committed second degree sexual abuse.
Fisher appeals.
II. Standard of Review
In considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence proving a
conviction, we review for a correction of errors at law. State v. Fenton, 13 N.W.3d
573, 577 (Iowa 2024). “In jury-waived cases, the findings of fact have the effect of
a special verdict and are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence.” State
v. Fordyce, 940 N.W.2d 419, 425 (Iowa 2020) (internal citations omitted). “[W]e
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including all legitimate
inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be deduced from the
record evidence.” Fenton, 13 N.W.3d at 577 (cleaned up).
III. Discussion
Fisher’s sole argument on appeal is L.L.’s testimony was “so inconsistent,
vague, and unreliable that th[e] court should deem it insufficient as a matter of law
to support Fisher’s conviction.” See State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1993). Fisher acknowledges recent supreme court cases have criticized
Smith, but he insists “it remains controlling law” in the absence of an opinion
expressly overruling it. The supreme court has noted Smith is “inconsistent with
the standard of appellate review” requiring “deference to the [factfinder]’s
resolution of disputed factual issues.” State v. Mathis, 971 N.W.2d 514, 518
(Iowa 2022). Without expressly overruling Smith, the court noted even that 5
standard required “fatal contradictions or deficiencies” in the victim’s testimony to
afford any relief.
The details Fisher challenges in L.L.’s testimony include the vague
timeframe of the abuse and lack of specific details, the frequency of abuse, the
delay in reporting, a claim L.L. was remembering abuse by an unnamed other
person, lack of corroboration by the mother, and an assertion L.L. could not be
describing his actions because he does not wear underwear and is physically
unable to complete the described events due to the size of his stomach and penis.
None of these arguments are persuasive.
“Inconsistencies and lack of detail are common in sexual abuse cases and
do not compel a [factfinder] to conclude that the victim is not credible or that there
is insufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict.” State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d
1, 11 (Iowa 2021); see also State v Parker, No. 22-0491, 2023 WL 7391664, at *2
(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023) (“We do not require total precision from the victim’s
testimony.”). L.L. was very young at the time of the abuse, and several years had
passed between when the abuse occurred and the trial. L.L.’s testimony provided
details describing who, what, where, and generally when the abuse occurred. We
do not require photographic memory and recitation by victims to find them credible.
As to the frequency of abuse, the court only needed to find one instance of abuse
occurred during the time frame charged and, based on the court’s credibility
finding, there was more than sufficient evidence to convict him of at least one
instance. Nor did the court consider the delay in reporting as a strike against L.L.’s
credibility—rather, the court found L.L. would have no reason to even think about
Fisher anymore by the time she reported the abuse, and L.L. “was likely 6
intimidated” by Fisher due to the difference in their size and the threat of harm he
directed at her and her mother. We defer to the court’s credibility finding. We also
note L.L.’s mother had remarried when she made the first disclosure, and she may
have felt protected enough to report despite Fisher’s threats.
The mother’s general lack of corroboration is understandable, given L.L.’s
testimony the abuse always occurred when the mother was at work. But S.L.
provided corroborating testimony, and “[a] sexual abuse victim’s testimony alone
may be sufficient evidence for conviction.” Donahue, 957 N.W.2d at 10–11; see
also State v. Kraai, 969 N.W.2d 487, 490–91 (Iowa 2022) (discussing the history
of corroboration of victims of alleged sexual abuse and noting none is required)
And the district court carefully considered the testimony of the mother and S.L.,
finding them partially corroborating at best. But the court was “firmly convinced
that L.L.’s testimony is credible and truthful,” and the State had proven the
elements of sexual abuse in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. The
lack of full corroboration on events only witnessed by L.L. and Fisher does not
diminish L.L.’s credibility.
Finally, Fisher’s underwear argument and his assertion he was physically
unable to perpetrate the abuse do not persuade us we should overturn the court’s
ruling. The district court concluded the existence (or not) of Fisher’s underwear
was not significant in L.L.’s recitation of events and she had no specific recollection
relating to it. Instead, L.L. admitted she did not remember the details of where
Fisher’s pants and underwear were during the abuse. We also agree with the
district court’s analysis of Fisher’s physical capability for the abuse. Fisher’s
demonstration of the effort to get up from sitting on the floor took “less than five 7
seconds,” even while wearing shackles. More, the court observed S.L.’s presence
in the living room and the description of L.L.’s bedroom meant “the floor was the
only option.”
As was the case in Mathis, we discern “no fatal contradictions or
deficiencies in either [victims’] testimony.” See 971 N.W.2d at 518. Ultimately,
any conflicts of evidence, witness credibility, and discrepancies or contradictions
are for the fact finder to resolve, not for us to determine anew. See id. The district
court did just that, and we find no reversible error in this record.
AFFIRMED.