IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1500 Filed March 18, 2020
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Susan Christensen,
Judge.
Timothy Smith appeals his convictions for two counts of second-degree
sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. 2
MAY, Judge.
Timothy Smith appeals his convictions of two counts of sexual abuse in the
second degree. He contends the district court abused its discretion by excluding
evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412(b)(1)(c). He also claims he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
H.R. is a child. In 2007, Smith had illicit contact with H.R. According to
H.R., when she was in first or second grade, Smith touched her chest, mouth, and
vaginal area with his penis. Smith’s penis either penetrated her vagina or anus.
When the contact ended, H.R. “had something sticky all over [her]” that came from
Smith’s penis. On another occasion, Smith inserted his penis into H.R.’s mouth.
At the time, H.R. did not disclose the abuse because she was afraid Smith would
hurt her.
Smith moved to another town but continued to have contact with H.R. When
H.R. was in either third or fourth grade, Smith penetrated either her vagina or anus.
This caused her to feel a sharp pain.
Eventually, H.R. moved away from Smith. She disclosed the abuse to her
mother and then a teacher. Police came to H.R.’s school to meet with her. After
additional investigation, Smith was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse
in the second degree.
Prior to trial, Smith filed a motion to offer evidence under Iowa Rule of
Evidence 5.412. He asked for leave to introduce evidence that H.R. also accused
his son of sexual abuse and there were criminal proceedings pending against his 3
son. He reasoned this would go to H.R.’s credibility and whether she confused her
alleged abusers. The court denied his motion, and the matter proceeded to trial.
During voir dire, some potential jurors expressed opinions that defendants
should testify or provide evidence of their innocence. Defense counsel moved to
strike for cause four potential jurors expressing these opinions. The court denied
counsel’s motions. The State and defense used two preemptory strikes each to
eliminate the four potential jurors.
The jury found Smith guilty as charged. On appeal, Smith argues he should
have been allowed to present evidence H.R. confused him with his son, whom she
had also accused of abusing her. He also claims trial counsel was ineffective in
voir dire.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
“The district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including
admissibility under rule 5.412, are reviewed for abuse of discretion. To the extent
[Smith] asserts constitutional claims, our review is de novo.” State v. Hartman, No.
14-0727, 2015 WL 4642276, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2015) (citations omitted).
“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are based in the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa
Constitution. We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for
postconviction-relief proceedings. But, ‘we review ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims de novo.’” State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Iowa 2019)
(citations omitted). 4
III. Discussion
Smith argues the district court should have permitted him to introduce
evidence that H.R. also accused his son of sexual abuse and his son was also
criminally charged. He argues “evidence of other allegations of abuse could have
been used to show that H.R. was not necessarily lying, but had misremembered
or had confused memories.” Smith contends this was his defense, and he was
prevented from presenting it. And he laments that, during his testimony, “the
prosecutor [asked] why H.R. would make the allegations, and he could not answer
that question because of the court’s ruling.” In short, Smith wanted to admit
someone sexually abused H.R.—but then argue H.R. couldn’t accurately identify
her abuser due to her young age.
Evidence of past sexual abuse is governed by Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412.
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). It generally “prohibits
introduction of reputation or opinion evidence of a complaining witness’s other
sexual behavior and substantially limits the admission of evidence of specific
instances of a complaining witness’s other sexual behavior.” State v. Trane, 934
N.W.2d 447, 456 (Iowa 2019) (footnote omitted). Its 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.” State v.
Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Iowa 2006).
Rule 5.412(b)(1) provides limited exceptions. At issue here is rule
5.412(b)(1)(c), which permits the admission of “[e]vidence whose exclusion would
violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.” According to Smith, his constitutional 5
rights were violated because he was denied his right to present a defense. See,
e.g., State v. Clark, 814 N.W.2d 551, 561 (Iowa 2012).
“However, even relevant evidence is not constitutionally required to be
admitted if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.” Thompson v.
State, 492 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 1992). Even when evidence of a victim’s past
sexual conduct fits an exception under rule 5.412(b)(1), “the evidence still would
not be admissible if its probative value did not outweigh the danger of substantial
prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.” See id. at 415.
The present case is comparable to State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874, 877
(Iowa 2019). In Walker, the defendant wanted to introduce evidence the
complaining witness was actually abused by her brother instead of him. 935
N.W.2d at 877. The district court considered the proffered evidence unduly
prejudicial and excluded under rule 5.412. Id. at 878. The supreme court affirmed
on multiple bases. See id. at 877–78. Among those, the court determined
evidence of past alleged sexual abuse by the complaining witness’s sibling “was,
at best, only marginally relevant” and “would have merely confused the issues,
misled the jury, and created multiple trials within the trial” and properly excluded
by rule 5.403. Id. at 878.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1500 Filed March 18, 2020
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TIMOTHY D. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cass County, Susan Christensen,
Judge.
Timothy Smith appeals his convictions for two counts of second-degree
sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. 2
MAY, Judge.
Timothy Smith appeals his convictions of two counts of sexual abuse in the
second degree. He contends the district court abused its discretion by excluding
evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412(b)(1)(c). He also claims he received
ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
H.R. is a child. In 2007, Smith had illicit contact with H.R. According to
H.R., when she was in first or second grade, Smith touched her chest, mouth, and
vaginal area with his penis. Smith’s penis either penetrated her vagina or anus.
When the contact ended, H.R. “had something sticky all over [her]” that came from
Smith’s penis. On another occasion, Smith inserted his penis into H.R.’s mouth.
At the time, H.R. did not disclose the abuse because she was afraid Smith would
hurt her.
Smith moved to another town but continued to have contact with H.R. When
H.R. was in either third or fourth grade, Smith penetrated either her vagina or anus.
This caused her to feel a sharp pain.
Eventually, H.R. moved away from Smith. She disclosed the abuse to her
mother and then a teacher. Police came to H.R.’s school to meet with her. After
additional investigation, Smith was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse
in the second degree.
Prior to trial, Smith filed a motion to offer evidence under Iowa Rule of
Evidence 5.412. He asked for leave to introduce evidence that H.R. also accused
his son of sexual abuse and there were criminal proceedings pending against his 3
son. He reasoned this would go to H.R.’s credibility and whether she confused her
alleged abusers. The court denied his motion, and the matter proceeded to trial.
During voir dire, some potential jurors expressed opinions that defendants
should testify or provide evidence of their innocence. Defense counsel moved to
strike for cause four potential jurors expressing these opinions. The court denied
counsel’s motions. The State and defense used two preemptory strikes each to
eliminate the four potential jurors.
The jury found Smith guilty as charged. On appeal, Smith argues he should
have been allowed to present evidence H.R. confused him with his son, whom she
had also accused of abusing her. He also claims trial counsel was ineffective in
voir dire.
II. Scope and Standards of Review
“The district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence, including
admissibility under rule 5.412, are reviewed for abuse of discretion. To the extent
[Smith] asserts constitutional claims, our review is de novo.” State v. Hartman, No.
14-0727, 2015 WL 4642276, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2015) (citations omitted).
“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are based in the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa
Constitution. We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for
postconviction-relief proceedings. But, ‘we review ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims de novo.’” State v. Brown, 930 N.W.2d 840, 844 (Iowa 2019)
(citations omitted). 4
III. Discussion
Smith argues the district court should have permitted him to introduce
evidence that H.R. also accused his son of sexual abuse and his son was also
criminally charged. He argues “evidence of other allegations of abuse could have
been used to show that H.R. was not necessarily lying, but had misremembered
or had confused memories.” Smith contends this was his defense, and he was
prevented from presenting it. And he laments that, during his testimony, “the
prosecutor [asked] why H.R. would make the allegations, and he could not answer
that question because of the court’s ruling.” In short, Smith wanted to admit
someone sexually abused H.R.—but then argue H.R. couldn’t accurately identify
her abuser due to her young age.
Evidence of past sexual abuse is governed by Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412.
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). It generally “prohibits
introduction of reputation or opinion evidence of a complaining witness’s other
sexual behavior and substantially limits the admission of evidence of specific
instances of a complaining witness’s other sexual behavior.” State v. Trane, 934
N.W.2d 447, 456 (Iowa 2019) (footnote omitted). Its 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.” State v.
Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Iowa 2006).
Rule 5.412(b)(1) provides limited exceptions. At issue here is rule
5.412(b)(1)(c), which permits the admission of “[e]vidence whose exclusion would
violate the defendant’s constitutional rights.” According to Smith, his constitutional 5
rights were violated because he was denied his right to present a defense. See,
e.g., State v. Clark, 814 N.W.2d 551, 561 (Iowa 2012).
“However, even relevant evidence is not constitutionally required to be
admitted if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value.” Thompson v.
State, 492 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 1992). Even when evidence of a victim’s past
sexual conduct fits an exception under rule 5.412(b)(1), “the evidence still would
not be admissible if its probative value did not outweigh the danger of substantial
prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.” See id. at 415.
The present case is comparable to State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874, 877
(Iowa 2019). In Walker, the defendant wanted to introduce evidence the
complaining witness was actually abused by her brother instead of him. 935
N.W.2d at 877. The district court considered the proffered evidence unduly
prejudicial and excluded under rule 5.412. Id. at 878. The supreme court affirmed
on multiple bases. See id. at 877–78. Among those, the court determined
evidence of past alleged sexual abuse by the complaining witness’s sibling “was,
at best, only marginally relevant” and “would have merely confused the issues,
misled the jury, and created multiple trials within the trial” and properly excluded
by rule 5.403. Id. at 878.
For similar reasons, we find that Smith’s proposed evidence would have
confused and misled the jury. See State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 449 (Iowa
2014) (noting the balancing test for admission of evidence under 5.412(b) is
“identical to that contained in rule 5.403”), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v.
Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2016). It also would have required the
jury to first determine if Smith’s son had sexually abused H.R.—creating a trial 6
within a trial—before considering if H.R. accidentally attributed sexual abuse
committed by Smith’s son to Smith.
Moreover, Smith’s proposed evidence was also of minimal probative value.
As the State correctly points out, Smith’s offer of proof did not include proposed
expert testimony regarding children’s tendency to confuse known individuals with
each other. Put differently, he provided nothing to substantiate his claim that
young children have a tendency to confuse the identities of their known abusers.
In short, even assuming the absence of Smith’s proposed evidence had an
impact on his defense, it was properly excluded. See Thompson, 492 N.W.2d at
414–15.
Next Smith argues his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request
additional preemptory strikes following the court’s refusal to strike four jurors for
cause. See State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566, 583 (Iowa 2017).1
To succeed on an ineffective-assistance claim, Smith must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that counsel failed to perform an essential duty
and Strickland prejudice2 resulted. State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874, 881 (Iowa
2019). The first prong of the ineffective-assistance test requires Smith show
1 We recognize Iowa Code section 814.7 was recently amended to provide in pertinent part: “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a criminal case shall be determined by filing an application for postconviction relief” and “shall not be decided on direct appeal from the criminal proceedings.” See 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 140, § 31. In State v. Macke, however, our supreme court held the amendment “appl[ies] only prospectively and do[es] not apply to cases pending on July 1, 2019.” 933 N.W.2d 226, 235 (Iowa 2019). We are bound by our supreme court’s holding. We conclude, therefore, the amendment “do[es] not apply” to this case, which was pending on July 1, 2019. Id. 2 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), provided that prejudice
occurs when “counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” 7
“counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.”
State v. Ortiz, 905 N.W.2d 174, 183 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). We consider
whether counsel acted “outside the wide range of professionally competent
assistance.” Id. at 184 (citation omitted). We understand counsel may have good
reasons for proceeding through trial in a specific manner. State v. Coleman, 907
N.W.2d 124, 142 (Iowa 2018). Those reasons are not always apparent on direct
appeal. See id. So it is often best to provide counsel an opportunity to explain.
See id. We follow this approach here. We preserve Smith’s claim for a future
postconviction-relief action in which counsel can respond to Smith’s claim, and in
which Smith can attempt to show Strickland prejudice. See id.3
IV. Conclusion
The district court did not err in excluding evidence that Smith’s son also
sexually abused H.R. We preserve Smith’s ineffective-assistance claim for future
postconviction-relief proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
3 In his reply brief, Smith makes a passing claim that “plain error review should be applied” in his section heading. Smith did not make this claim in his original brief, so we cannot consider it. See State v. Olsen, 794 N.W.2d 285, 287 n.1 (Iowa 2011). Even if we could, we are powerless to adopt the plain-error doctrine because our supreme court had repeatedly declined to adopt it. See, e.g., State v. Martin, 877 N.W.2d 859, 866 (Iowa 2016) (noting the supreme court has “repeatedly declined ‘to abandon our preservation of error rules in favor of a discretionary plain error rule’” (citation omitted)).