Amended December 3, 2014 State of Iowa v. Patrick Edouard ( 2014 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 12–1899
Filed July 18, 2014
Amended December 3, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
PATRICK EDOUARD,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Paul R.
Huscher, Judge.
The State seeks further review of a decision by the court of appeals
reversing a pastor’s convictions for sexual exploitation by a counselor or
therapist under Iowa Code section 709.15 and remanding for a new trial.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART; CASE
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Gary D. Dickey Jr. and Angela L. Campbell of Dickey & Campbell
Law Firm P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Scott K.
Brown, and Laura M. Roan, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward W.
Bull, County Attorney, for appellee.
2
MANSFIELD, Justice.
A pastor who had sexual relations with four women in his
congregation was convicted of four counts of sexual exploitation by a
counselor or therapist and one count of a pattern or practice to engage in
sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist. See Iowa Code
§ 709.15(2)(a), (c) (2013). 1 The pastor appealed, contending: (1) the
district court failed to properly instruct the jury on the sexual
exploitation statute; (2) the district court abused its discretion in
excluding expert testimony concerning differences between pastoral care
and pastoral counseling; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the
pastor’s convictions; (4) the district court erred in denying the pastor’s
discovery request for one of the victim’s counseling records; (5) the
sexual exploitation statute is unconstitutional as applied to the pastor;
(6) the district court wrongly excluded certain fact evidence; and (7) the
district court erred in the amount of restitution awarded against the
pastor.
On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new
trial. It found that the jury instructions were improper and the district
court had abused its discretion in excluding the proffered expert
testimony. Upon further review, we respectfully disagree with the court
of appeals and find no error on these points. We therefore vacate the
court of appeals decision.
We also reject the pastor’s remaining claims of error, with two
exceptions. We find the district court should have conducted an in
1For the sake of convenience, we cite to the current version of Iowa Code section
709.15 (2013). The general assembly made nonsubstantive changes to the relevant
provisions of section 709.15 in 2013, which do not affect our analysis here. See 2013
Iowa Acts ch. 90, § 230. Prior to those 2013 changes, the legislature had last amended
section 709.15 in 2004. See Iowa Code § 709.15.
3
camera review of the counseling records. We therefore remand so this
review may occur, along with further proceedings if necessary. We also
reverse the restitution award and remand for further proceedings
thereon. In all other respects, we affirm the pastor’s convictions and
sentence.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
We recite the facts in the manner most favorable to the jury
verdicts. 2
Patrick Edouard served as the pastor of the Covenant Reformed
Church in Pella from 2003 to 2010. Witnesses testified that his sermons
were “amazing,” “great,” and “dynamic.” He was a “very talented
speaker.” “He definitely could preach the word of God.”
V.B. and her husband were members of the church from the time
Edouard arrived in 2003. In 2005, Edouard began making unsolicited
calls to V.B. on her cellphone. V.B. was undergoing fertility treatments
unsuccessfully and was struggling with her infertility. Edouard began
asking questions about V.B.’s personal life, and she began to confide in
him.
V.B. and her husband decided to look at international adoption. A
potential opportunity arose to adopt four siblings from abroad as a
group. V.B. was personally struggling with this adoption, and at the
recommendation of her husband and her mother she decided to see
Edouard. As V.B. related,
I think it was in January or February of 2006, and we were
getting ready to adopt the sibling group . . . , and I called
2Three of the victims testified that the first time they had sexual relations with
Edouard he forced them to do so. Because Edouard was acquitted of the sexual abuse
charges, we will not include further discussion of that testimony herein.
4
him from my office and told him that I wanted to come see
him.
And he said, ‘Great. I’ve been encouraging you to do that, to
come see me. You know I’ve told you you can talk to me
anytime.’ And so he said, ‘Just come tonight. We can just
meet here at my study.’
When V.B. arrived at Edouard’s house, Edouard’s wife and family
were present. Edouard told his wife, “We could be a while,” and he and
V.B. headed down to the study in the basement. Edouard then locked
the door to the study so, as he explained, the children would not
interrupt them. The study served as Edouard’s office, and had
bookshelves, a desk, and two couches.
Edouard asked V.B. how she was doing, and she explained she
was really struggling with this adoption. “I wasn’t sure if it was what
God wanted for me in my life,” she said. Edouard asked V.B. about her
marriage and whether her husband was “meeting [her] needs.” V.B.
started to cry and said that things were difficult. At that point, Edouard
made advances toward her and had sexual relations with her.
Edouard continued to call V.B. on her cellphone thereafter. He
repeatedly told V.B. that her husband was not meeting her needs. He
also told V.B. he was attracted to her. They would talk two or three
hours a day. V.B. would call Edouard, in addition to Edouard calling
V.B. This lasted for months. Edouard also arranged liaisons with V.B.
during the workday at hotel rooms and other buildings near V.B.’s office.
Edouard would appear at V.B.’s workplace uninvited.
Edouard insisted to V.B. that she did not really want to adopt, that
she was doing it to please her husband. He told V.B. that her real
struggles resulted from her unhappiness in her marriage—“the sexual
frustration.” V.B. testified, “His role was to protect me, because I had all
5
of this sexual energy that needed to be released, and he had to be there
to protect me.”
Edouard asked V.B. for money. As V.B. explained,
he would make references to . . . it’s possible that . . . God
brought us together so that . . . I can provide for him out of
the excess of my abundance, what I had, I could in turn
bless him with that.
Edouard made it clear he did not want a loan, because he could get a
loan elsewhere and did not want to be burdened with a repayment
obligation. V.B. gave Edouard a total of $70,000.
Eventually, after V.B. adopted a child, the relationship cooled. In
approximately November 2009, V.B. called Edouard and told him she
knew what he was doing, “that he’s trying to get women into counseling
for the purpose of trying to have sexual contact with them.” Edouard
panicked and tried to call or see V.B. at her office, but V.B. refused to
have any communication with him for several months. Their sexual
relationship ended. V.B. did not report anything to the church elders or
the police at the time, because she did not think she would be believed.
S.K. and her husband were also active members of the Covenant
Reformed Church when Edouard arrived in 2003. Four years later, when
S.K.’s husband happened to be out of the country, Edouard began
calling S.K. to check up on her.
S.K.’s father was going through a severe illness at that time and
later in 2007 passed away. S.K.’s husband was depressed. S.K.’s
daughter was having problems in her marriage. S.K. was feeling down
because of her father’s death and the troubles in her daughter’s
marriage. S.K. also learned that her husband had had two affairs. In
addition, S.K.’s best friend passed away.
6
Edouard called S.K. on her cellphone while S.K. was driving and
wanted to know how she was doing. S.K. responded that she was not
doing very well. S.K. started shaking; she pulled her car over. At this
point Edouard made a comment to S.K. that “he would like it if we could
be together under the cool, crisp sheets.” He added, “You know, if you
ever need anybody to talk to, you know, call me. I’ll always be there for
you.” S.K. was shocked by Edouard’s comment.
However, some months later, in early 2008, S.K. called Edouard
because she “just had absolutely nobody to talk to.” Her relationship
with her husband was rocky. Edouard sensed something was going on
and said, “You can tell me . . . things, and I’ll listen.” S.K. asked him to
come see her, because she wanted to discuss her problems in her
marriage with him. At the meeting, she disclosed her husband’s affairs
to Edouard. After about thirty minutes of conversation, Edouard asked
S.K. if he could kiss her. Thereafter, Edouard and S.K. had many
meetings where they kissed. They began having sex.
In the spring of 2008, Edouard took S.K. down to the study in the
basement of his house. He locked the door, and S.K. thought they would
talk. Instead, they had sex. Afterward Edouard told her:
You will never tell anybody. The elders will never believe
you. They will only believe me. I’ll make sure everybody
knows you’re crazy. You’ll kill your husband . . . . You’ll
destroy the church. You’ll hurt your family and you will hurt
[my family].
S.K. had sexual relations with Edouard a total of six to eight times.
S.K. felt that Edouard “had power” over her. “He made me feel like I
depended on him,” she said.
7
Eventually Edouard terminated the relationship. But he said to
S.K., “Call me if you ever need me or need somebody to talk to, I’ll always
be there for you night or day.”
W.B. and her husband also belonged to Covenant Reformed
Church when Edouard became the pastor in 2003. W.B.’s father had
been a pastor himself.
In August 2007, W.B. attended a church service alone. Edouard
approached her after the service and asked how she was doing. As the
conversation progressed, W.B. felt Edouard was flirting with her. During
the course of the week, Edouard called again. The discussion was again
flirtatious. W.B. could not sleep or eat. She prayed.
On the following Thursday, W.B. asked Edouard for a meeting.
She intended to “let him down.” It was arranged for the meeting to occur
in the office in Edouard’s home. Edouard assured W.B. it was fine to
come to his home during an evening, as he “counsels women” in his
home.
When W.B. arrived, Edouard and his family were there. Edouard
took W.B. down to the basement office and locked the door. Edouard
asked W.B. very personal questions. Edouard posed “a lot of questions—
very concerned about how I was doing, how my father is doing.” W.B.’s
father had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. W.B. disclosed to
Edouard that she had been sexually abused as a child. The conversation
lasted a couple of hours. There was no sexual contact.
Edouard and W.B. continued to meet. They had sexually charged
conversations. Soon they began to have sex. Edouard told W.B. not to
tell anyone because “nobody would understand this. Even if you feel
close to your husband some night, never tell him. Never think he’s going
to understand this.” Edouard and W.B. engaged in sexual activity over a
8
period of years. During the course of her sexual relationship with
Edouard, W.B. went to marital counseling with her husband. Edouard
asked W.B. to recite what she had been told at the marital counseling
sessions and then indicated to W.B. whether or not to follow that advice.
A.B. and her husband were also members of the church when
Edouard was appointed pastor. In the spring of 2008, A.B. had a young
child with special needs, her mother-in-law had passed away, and she
had an overworked husband. As A.B. put it, “My plate was very full.”
A.B. had seen a physician and had been prescribed an anti-depressant
and anxiety medication, which she was taking.
At that time, Edouard called A.B. and asked to set up a meeting.
She recounted, “He just wanted to make sure that I was doing okay . . . .”
Eventually a meeting was set for a school day in April in Edouard’s
basement study. Edouard locked the door from the inside. They began
with conversation. Edouard probed A.B. on whether she felt stressed.
He asked her about her family issues. He asked A.B. whether she had
had premarital sex. After a while, Edouard told A.B. that he was very
fond of her and “would like to get to know [her] better.” Edouard added,
“[S]omebody needs to take care of you. You have your hands full.” A.B.
became uncomfortable. Her feet were trembling.
The encounter ended because A.B. had to leave to pick up her son.
But other conversations followed. Edouard told A.B., “I just want you to
sit and tell me everything about you.” Edouard asked A.B. about her sex
life, telling her she could trust him. He frequently asked whether A.B.
had been sexually abused as a child. As A.B. put it, “[T]he questions
were getting deeper and [he was] getting to know me more and more, I
guess knowing my vulnerabilities, . . . where the voids were in my life.”
9
Soon Edouard asked to meet A.B. at her home. After he arrived,
he kissed her. Subsequently, Edouard and A.B. called each other many
times a day. They kissed and made out. A.B. shared with Edouard that
she longed for someone to take care of her. By May 2008 Edouard and
A.B. were having sex. This continued at least once a week for the next
two-and-a-half years. Edouard advised A.B. that this was a “secret
relationship, and we need to keep [it] a secret.”
In May 2010, Edouard told A.B. he had something he needed to get
off his chest. He disclosed to her that he had had sexual relationships in
the past with V.B. and S.K. V.B. is A.B.’s sister-in-law. A.B. was
“devastated and shocked.” She “had a very difficult time.” Yet Edouard
and A.B. continued their sexual relationship. According to A.B., “[H]e
was just constantly always evaluating me.”
In December 2010, A.B.’s husband arrived at home as Edouard
and A.B. were having sexual relations. He saw Edouard’s vehicle and
became suspicious. He spoke to his own brother (V.B.’s spouse) and the
two of them put the stories together. Then A.B.’s husband went to the
elders of the church.
Edouard resigned immediately. He called S.K. and informed her he
had resigned because he had been caught kissing the hand of another
woman. He reminded her not to disclose their sexual relationship. He
also called W.B. and told her he had resigned because two affairs had
come to light. He told W.B., “If anybody says you’re one of them, just
deny it. I will never tell anybody, and this will all blow over. I love you.”
He made W.B. role-play and rehearse her denials.
Edouard was charged with three counts of sexual abuse in the
third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1), four counts of
sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist in violation of section
10
709.15(2)(c), and one count of engaging in a pattern or practice of sexual
exploitation by a counselor or therapist in violation of section
709.15(2)(a).
Following a change of venue, the case went to trial in Dallas
County, commencing August 13, 2012. Each of the four victims testified.
Edouard and his wife testified for the defense. Edouard acknowledged
having sexual relations with all four women, but maintained that it was
consensual. Edouard denied having provided mental health services to
any of the women.
The jury found Edouard not guilty on the three sexual abuse
charges, but guilty on the five sexual exploitation charges. He was
sentenced to one year imprisonment on each of the Iowa Code section
709.15(2)(c) counts, with the sentences to run consecutively. He was
sentenced to five years imprisonment on the section 709.15(2)(a) count,
with the sentence to run concurrently with the section 709.15(2)(c)
sentences. Edouard timely appealed.
On appeal, Edouard argues: (1) the evidence was insufficient to
prove that he provided mental health services to V.B., S.K., W.B., or A.B.;
(2) the district court erred in denying his discovery request for W.B.’s
counseling records; (3) the sexual exploitation statute is unconstitutional
as applied to him; (4) the district court abused its discretion in excluding
expert testimony relating to the differences between pastoral counseling
and pastoral care; (5) the district court erred in excluding certain fact
evidence; (6) the district court erred in omitting certain jury instructions;
and (7) the district court erred in the computation of restitution.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which reversed
and remanded for a new trial. The court of appeals found the district
court had failed to properly instruct the jury on the “mental health
11
services” element of the sexual exploitation counts and had wrongfully
excluded Edouard’s proposed expert testimony. The State applied for
further review, and we granted the application.
II. Standard of Review.
“We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors
at law.” State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70, 73 (Iowa 2013). The related claim
that the district court should have given a requested instruction is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.
Constitutional challenges to the district court’s discovery rulings
are reviewed de novo. State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 476 (Iowa
2013); State v. Cashen, 789 N.W.2d 400, 405 (Iowa 2010), superseded by
statute, 2011 Iowa Acts ch. 8 § 2. We likewise review de novo challenges
to a statute’s constitutionality. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d at 483. Statutes
are presumed to be constitutional. Id.
The district court’s rulings on the admissibility of evidence are
reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Huston, 825 N.W.2d 531, 536
(Iowa 2013). Additionally, “[w]e review challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence for correction of errors at law.” State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d
180, 190 (Iowa 2013). Finally, restitution orders are reviewed for
correction of errors at law. State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140, 144 (Iowa
2013).
III. Analysis.
We begin our consideration of Edouard’s appeal with the
instructional and evidentiary issues that were the basis of the court of
appeals’ reversal and remand.
A. Jury Instructions. According to the Iowa Code:
2. Sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist
occurs when any of the following are found:
12
....
(c) Any sexual conduct with a patient or client or
former patient or client within one year of the termination of
the provision of mental health services by the counselor or
therapist for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual
desires of the counselor or therapist or the patient or client
or former patient or client . . . .
Iowa Code § 709.15(2)(c). Sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist
within the meaning of section 709.15(2)(c) is considered a serious
misdemeanor. See id. § 709.15(4)(c). Additionally, it is a class “D” felony
for a counselor or therapist to engage in a “pattern or practice or scheme
of conduct” of sexual exploitation. See id. § 709.15(2)(a), (4)(a).
The statute defines “counselor or therapist” as follows:
“Counselor or therapist” means a physician, psychologist,
nurse, professional counselor, social worker, marriage or
family therapist, alcohol or drug counselor, member of the
clergy, or any other person, whether or not licensed or
registered by the state, who provides or purports to provide
mental health services.
Id. § 709.15(1)(a).
Thus, Iowa law makes it a crime for anyone who provides “mental
health services” to another person to engage in sexual conduct with that
person while the mental health services are being provided or within one
year thereafter. Id. § 709.15(1)(a), (2)(c). The law does not require the
defendant to have any particular status. Id. § 709.15(1)(a). The
defendant, for example, need not be a professional or a clergyperson. Id.
All that is required is that the defendant (1) provided “mental health
services” to a person and (2) engaged in sexual conduct with that person
less than one year later. Id. § 709.15(1)(a), (2)(c).
The statute in turn defines “mental health services” to mean “the
treatment, assessment, or counseling of another person for a cognitive,
13
behavioral, emotional, mental, or social dysfunction, including an
intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunction.” Id. § 709.15(1)(d).
We have considered and rejected vagueness and overbreadth
challenges to this law in the past. In State v. Allen, we affirmed the
conviction of a hypnotherapist who engaged in sexual conduct with a
patient, while rejecting a vagueness and overbreadth challenge to the
statute. 565 N.W.2d 333, 337–38 (Iowa 1997). The defendant there had
fondled the victim and attempted sexual intercourse with her during
hypnotherapy sessions, which also involved the provision of alcoholic
beverages and readings of Tarot cards. Id. at 335. We reasoned that the
statute did not reach a substantial amount of protected conduct because
“[a] person of ordinary intelligence could understand that the term
‘mental health services’ . . . does not encompass strictly personal
relationships involving the informal exchange of advice” and would rarely
if ever “apply to a marriage relationship.” Id. at 337–38.
In State v. Gonzalez, we reversed the dismissal of a trial
information charging a psychiatric nursing assistant with violating the
statute. 718 N.W.2d 304, 305 (Iowa 2006). According to the
information, the defendant had inappropriately touched a female
patient’s genital area. Id. Accepting the facts in the information as true,
we found it sufficient to allege criminal conduct. Id. at 308–09. The
defendant had provided “treatment” because he “performed nursing
tasks to assist in providing care of psychiatric patients” and
“assessment” because he “performed nursing tasks to assist in
monitoring psychiatric patients.” Id. at 308. In dicta we also quoted a
definition of “counseling” from Webster’s dictionary, stating that the term
means:
14
“a practice or professional service designed to guide an
individual to a better understanding of his problems and
potentialities by utilizing modern psychological principles
and methods esp. in collecting case history data, using
various techniques of the personal interview, and testing
interests and aptitudes.”
Id. at 308 (quoting Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 518 (unabr. ed.
2002)). Our opinion, however, did not address whether the defendant
had provided counseling.
We also rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges in
Gonzalez. Regarding vagueness, we explained:
Any person who renders “treatment, assessment, or
counseling of another person for a cognitive, behavioral,
emotional, mental, or social dysfunction, including an
intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunction” provides
“ ‘[m]ental health service.’ ” Id. § 709.15(1)(d). There is no
doubt the language of section 709.15 applies to the services
Gonzalez is alleged to have provided to the female patient
under the facts in the trial information and attached
minutes. Therefore, we conclude Gonzalez’s vagueness claim
is without merit.
Id. at 310. We then refused to find the statute overbroad because
Gonzalez had not identified any protected conduct. Id.
Edouard does not ask us to reexamine Allen or Gonzalez. He does
not argue on appeal that the statute is void for vagueness or overbroad.
Instead, we are asked to decide whether the district court’s sexual
exploitation jury instructions were proper.
Here, for each alleged victim, the district court instructed the jury
as follows:
The State must prove each of the following elements of
Sexual Exploitation by a Counselor or Therapist as to
[alleged victim]:
1. On or about [relevant time period], the defendant engaged
in sexual conduct with [alleged victim].
15
2. The defendant did so with the specific intent to arouse or
satisfy the sexual desires of either the defendant or [alleged
victim].
3. The defendant was then a counselor or therapist.
4. [Alleged victim] was then receiving mental health services
from the defendant, or had received mental health services
from the defendant within one year prior to the conduct.
Additionally, the court instructed the jury that “a ‘counselor or therapist’
includes a member of the clergy, or any other person, whether or not
licensed or registered by the State, who provides or purports to provide
mental health services.”
Finally, in Instruction 25, the court provided the jury with the
following definition of “mental health services”:
As used in element number 4 of Instructions No. 18, 19, 20,
and 21, ‘mental health services’ is the providing of
treatment, assessment, or counseling to another person for a
cognitive, behavioral, emotional, mental or social
dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or interpersonal
dysfunction. It does not include strictly personal
relationships involving the informal exchange of advice, nor
does it include the giving of general spiritual advice or
guidance from a clergy member to congregants. It
contemplates a counseling relationship with the clergy
member established for the purpose of addressing particular
mental, intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunctions.
Thus, the jury was not only given the statutory definition of mental
health services, see Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(d), the jury was also told—
consistent with Allen—that mental health services do not involve
informal advice. Additionally, in Instruction 25, the district court
excluded general spiritual advice or guidance from the definition of
mental health services. And Instruction 25 required the State to prove a
counseling relationship, not merely some counseling.
In crafting this instruction, the district court went beyond the Iowa
State Bar Association Criminal Jury Instruction, which simply restates
16
the statutory definition of mental health services. See Iowa State Bar
Ass’n, Iowa Crim. Jury Instruction 920.5 (2013). Essentially, the district
court adopted a middle position between the parties. The State had
asked that only the ISBA instruction be given. The defendant had
requested the following additions to the ISBA instruction:
Counseling means a practice or professional service designed
to guide an individual to a better understanding of his or her
problems and potentialities by utilizing modern psychological
principles and methods especially in collecting case history
data, using various techniques of personal interview, and
testing interests and aptitudes.
Mental health services does not mean mere spiritual advice
or guidance provided by a member of the clergy. Nor does it
encompass strictly personal relationships involving the
informal exchange of advice.
The district court, as can be seen, incorporated some of the defendant’s
proposals (i.e., the second paragraph) but not all of them (i.e., the first
paragraph).
Edouard argues that his definition of counseling, drawn from
certain language in Gonzalez, should have been included in the court’s
jury instructions. “[T]he court is required to give a party’s requested
instruction so long as it states a correct rule of law having application to
the facts of the case and when the concept is not otherwise embodied in
other instructions.” State v. Becker, 818 N.W.2d 135, 141 (Iowa 2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the court is not required
to give any particular form of an instruction; rather, the court must
merely give instructions that fairly state the law as applied to the facts of
the case.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
There is no dispute the district court provided the jury with Iowa
Code section 709.15(1)(d)’s complete definition of “mental health
services.” What the court did not do is go a step further. That is, the
17
district court did not tell the jury what the word “counseling,” as used in
that statutory definition, meant. “Counseling” is not defined in the
statute. Edouard contends the jury should have been told counseling is
limited to “modern psychological principles and methods especially in
collecting case history data, using various techniques of personal
interview, and testing interests and aptitudes.” 3 Edouard, in other
words, wanted the jury to be told that in order for him to be convicted,
any “counseling” he provided had to have been based upon a modern
psychological approach.
We have said:
In criminal cases, the court is required to instruct the jury
on the definition of the crime. Generally understood words
of ordinary usage need not be defined; however, technical
terms or legal terms of art must be explained.
State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 516 (Iowa 1996) (citation omitted).
“Counseling” is certainly a word of ordinary usage. Thus, it did not need
to be specially defined for the jury unless the legislature meant to use it
in a technical way in section 709.15 or viewed it as a “legal term of art.”
We do not believe the legislature had such a view of “counseling.”
“[S]tatutes must be read in their entirety.” State v. DeSimone, 839
N.W.2d 660, 666 (Iowa 2013). Read as a whole, Iowa Code section
709.15 does not appear to use the term “counseling” in a technical or
specialized way. To the contrary, the statute expressly covers members
of the clergy. See Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(a). These individuals typically
do not perform psychotherapy or use “modern psychological principles
3In his brief, Edouard concedes this is not the only dictionary definition of
“counseling.”
18
and methods especially in collecting case history data, using various
techniques of personal interview, and testing interests and aptitudes.”
Additionally, the statute by its terms does not require that the
defendant be “licensed or registered by the state,” and it covers even
persons who merely “purport[] to provide mental health services.” Id.
This again suggests that the legislature did not intend a strict definition
of counseling limited to modern psychological principles and methods, so
long as the individual was addressing “a cognitive, behavioral, emotional,
mental, or social dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or interpersonal
dysfunction.” See id. § 709.15(1)(d).
Furthermore, we do not believe our prior section 709.15 caselaw
supports Edouard’s requested jury instruction. In Allen we affirmed the
conviction of a hypnotherapist who plied his victim with alcohol and
Tarot cards. See 565 N.W.2d at 335. While we excluded mere informal
advice from the coverage of the statute, we did not say that the use of
“modern psychological principles and methods” was required. See id. at
337. To the contrary, the defendant there was a charlatan who used (or
purported to use) some of the oldest methods in the book—hypnotism,
adult beverages, and fortune telling. See id. at 335.
Gonzalez, as noted, did not involve “counseling.” See Gonzalez,
718 N.W.2d at 308. In addition, although we quoted some dictionary
definitions of statutory terms, we did so to demonstrate the defendant’s
conduct was covered by the statute, not to indicate those definitions set
forth the outermost limits of the law. See id.
Notably, when we rejected the argument later in Gonzalez that the
statute was unconstitutionally vague, we reverted to the statutory
definition of “mental health services,” not to any of the dictionary
definitions we had previously quoted. See id. at 310. Had we intended
19
the dictionary definitions to be a required gloss on the statute, we
logically would have repeated them and relied on them in discussing the
vagueness question. Thus, we do not read Gonzalez as endorsing a
definition of “counseling” limited to “modern psychological principles and
methods.”
For these reasons, we reject Edouard’s challenge to Instruction 25.
Edouard’s other challenges to the jury instructions are less substantial.
He contends the jury should have been told that each alleged victim had
to have been his “patient or client” in order to sustain a guilty verdict.
This argument is purely form over substance, because the statute defines
a “patient or client” as “a person who receives mental health services
from the counselor or therapist,” see Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(e), and the
jury was told that each of the alleged victims had to have “receiv[ed]
mental health services” from Edouard.
Edouard also urges that the jury should have been given a list of
“all the enumerated professions” referenced in section 709.15(1)(a),
including those which had no applicability to the case, such as
physicians, psychologists, nurses, professional counselors, social
workers, marriage or family therapists, and alcohol or drug counselors.
See id. § 709.15(1)(a). Instead, the jury was just told that “a ‘counselor
or therapist’ includes a member of the clergy, or any other person,
whether or not licensed or registered by the State, who provides or
purports to provide mental health services.” We see no error. The
district court’s instruction was an accurate statement of the law; it left
out only those portions of the statute that had no bearing on the case.
B. Expert Testimony. At trial, Edouard tried to offer testimony
from a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Hollida Wakefield, describing differences
between “pastoral care” and “pastoral counseling.” In an offer of proof,
20
Dr. Wakefield testified there is a difference between pastoral care and
pastoral counseling that is “recognized and accepted generally in the . . .
theological community.” Dr. Wakefield testified that pastoral care occurs
when
somebody comes with a specific problem, you get an idea of
what the problem is, you formulate a treatment plan, you
meet with the person in a structured way. It is usually time
limited. It doesn’t go on for months and years.
Based on her review of the depositions given by the four women,
Dr. Wakefield concluded Edouard’s interactions with them did not “fit the
definition of pastoral counseling.”
The district court refused to allow the testimony. It reasoned it
was the court’s duty
to instruct the jury on what the law is regarding mental
health services and counseling . . . and that it is the function
of the jury to determine whether the defendant’s conduct did
or did not constitute the provision of mental health services
by a counselor or therapist.
It excluded Dr. Wakefield’s testimony “regarding pastoral care or pastoral
counseling” because “neither . . . are a part of the elements of this case.”
The admissibility of expert testimony in a criminal case “falls
squarely within the trial court’s sound discretion.” State v. Hulbert, 481
N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa 1992). Upon our review, we do not believe the
court abused its discretion. Here, in effect, the defendant wanted to call
an expert to provide the defendant’s own definition of the crime, and then
to explain the defendant had not committed it.
Even if the theological community were in agreement that
Edouard’s actions did not amount to pastoral counseling, that would not
resolve whether Edouard’s actions fit within the statutory definition of
mental health services. See, e.g., People v. Littlejohn, 494 N.E.2d 677,
21
686 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (noting the district court improperly allowed
evidence by a doctor that confused the jury as to the legal definition of
insanity by testifying to a “definition [that] may have medical meaning to
clinicians,” but “clearly [did] not comport with Illinois definition of
insanity for legal purposes”); State v. Williams, 431 So. 2d 885, 888–89
(La. Ct. App. 1983) (upholding the convictions of the defendant, a prison
inmate, on one count of forcible rape and one count of attempted forcible
rape against a fellow inmate and rejecting the defendant’s argument that
the trial judge had erred in excluding the defendant’s expert witness
testimony about “the relationship between prison security and
consensual versus nonconsensual sex”); State v. Spano, 745 A.2d 598,
601–02 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2000) (upholding the exclusion of
expert testimony on the meaning of “worrying” in a statute which allowed
a person to kill a dog if it was “worrying” a domestic animal and affirming
the defendant’s conviction).
In 1925, we considered the appeal of an osteopath who, under the
statutes of that time, had been convicted of practicing medicine without
a license. See State v. Gibson, 199 Iowa 177, 178, 201 N.W. 590, 590
(1925). The defendant argued on appeal the trial court had erred in
excluding expert testimony as to the technical meaning of “internal
curative medicine.” Id. We rejected the appeal, reasoning the words “do
not import a technical meaning,” and therefore the expert testimony was
properly excluded. Id. at 178, 180, 201 N.W. at 590, 591. The same
basic principles concerning admissibility of expert testimony apply today.
In order for the expert testimony to be admissible, it must “assist
the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in
issue.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.702. In other words, it must add something to
the jury’s determination of whether Edouard’s actions fell within the legal
22
definition of mental health services. The specialized meaning given to a
term by the theological community is ultimately beside the point in
determining whether Edouard’s actions met the legislature’s definition of
the crime. Notably, Dr. Wakefield’s indicia of pastoral counseling—i.e.,
the existence of a “treatment plan,” the “structured” meetings, and
presence of time limitations—do not appear anywhere in section 709.15.
Hence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding
Dr. Wakefield’s proposed testimony.
C. Sufficiency of the Evidence. Edouard also contends there is
insufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict on any of the charges. In
particular, he disputes the sufficiency of the evidence that he provided
mental health services as defined in Iowa Code section 709.15(1)(d) to
any of the four women.
In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of evidence
supporting a guilty verdict, courts 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. [W]e will uphold a verdict if substantial
record evidence supports it. We will consider all the
evidence presented, not just the inculpatory evidence.
Evidence is considered substantial if, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, it can convince a rational
jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Inherent in our standard of review of jury verdicts in
criminal cases is the recognition that the jury [is] free to
reject certain evidence, and credit other evidence.
State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012) (citations omitted)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
We begin by noting a few common facts. All four women were
members of Covenant Reformed Church; Edouard had been their pastor
for several years. Three of the four had preexisting marital problems in
addition to other difficulties in their personal lives. The fourth developed
such problems after getting involved with Edouard, who claimed to be
23
resolving them. Two of the four went to Edouard’s office initially thinking
they would receive help from him, and Edouard quickly ended up having
sex with both of them (one of them in the office that day). Before and
during his sexual encounters with each of the four women, Edouard
asked each of them deeply personal and probing questions, purporting to
guide them through their personal difficulties.
We now review the evidence specifically relating to V.B. She was
“really struggling with going through” with an international adoption of
four siblings. She decided to see her pastor, Edouard, to discuss these
issues and her own infertility.
Edouard was immediately receptive. He responded, “I’ve told you,
you can talk to me anytime.” He invited her to his office, where he asked
her how she was doing. V.B. explained that she was “really struggling”
and that it was a “horrible, painful time” for her. After that, Edouard
moved into questioning about V.B.’s marriage and whether her husband
was “meeting her needs.” V.B. began to cry. Regarding her relationship
with her husband, V.B. told Edouard that “[i]t was hard that we were
both hurting and not able to hurt together, to connect together and hurt
through it; that we just seemed like we were separate. It was hard.” By
the end of the meeting, Edouard was having sexual relations with V.B.
V.B. added that in her faith and the way she was raised, “[w]e just
didn’t go to outside counselors . . . . [Y]ou would go to the elder or the
pastor and that was it.”
S.K., like V.B., was experiencing marital problems when she
decided to call Edouard as a result of “all the stresses in [her] life.” She
had previously sought counseling from Edouard after her daughter had
been sexually abused by another member of the congregation. Her
husband had recently confessed infidelities to her. S.K. felt their
24
“relationship was rocky,” and that she “had absolutely nobody to talk to.”
In addition to the marital problems S.K. was suffering, she was also
coping with the recent death of her best friend. Edouard “sensed
something was going on,” and Edouard explained to S.K. she could tell
him “things, and [he would] listen.” They set up a meeting at her house
to discuss these stressors in her life. S.K. revealed to Edouard her
husband’s infidelities in that meeting. S.K. “was relieved that [she] could
tell somebody, that he’s the pastor; that [she] could confidentially talk to
him about what was going on.” They continued to meet at her house. At
these ensuing meetings, they were physically intimate, and, S.K.
testified, they would talk, because she “would want to talk,” and felt she
“needed somebody to talk to.”
Edouard’s relationship with W.B. began in a different fashion.
Some flirtatious conversation between the two of them had occurred.
W.B. telephoned Edouard to set up a meeting to put an end to things.
When she asked in the course of that telephone conversation whether it
was “normal and acceptable” for Edouard to meet with women in his
office, “he said yes, he counsels women at his home, and . . . it was just
fine” for her to meet there.
At the office meeting, Edouard asked “a lot of questions—very
concerned about how I was doing, how my father is doing.” Her father
had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. The questions quickly
became more personal, and W.B. eventually revealed in the meeting that
she had been abused physically and sexually as a child. Edouard
probed that topic more deeply, she explained, as “[h]e was interested in
it. He wanted to know the dynamics.” Soon thereafter, Edouard began
to have a sexual relationship with W.B. This led W.B. to seek marital
25
counseling. Edouard would ask W.B. about what the marital counselor
had said, and then tell W.B. whether to follow that advice or not.
We turn finally to A.B. Edouard inquired as to how she was doing
and how she was “juggling everything.” He asked if she “would like to set
up a meeting with him.” Even though she testified she was not suffering
from a mental disease or dysfunction at the time of their initial meeting,
A.B. also testified she was taking depression and anxiety medication at
the time and had various stressors in her life. She agreed to meet with
Edouard in his home office. She perceived this meeting to be a
“counseling session, something [she] could go to that he was . . . a
pastor[.]” The conversation in that initial meeting, she testified, started
out with “typical conversation.” Edouard asked gradually more probing
questions, such as, “Do you feel stressed? Do you feel upset?” A.B.
testified she was “very open with him” because “it [was] all supposed to
be confidential,” so she “definitely shared with him the ins and outs of
how it felt to be a mom and taking care of everyone.” As the conversation
progressed, Edouard began to ask even more “dig-deep kind of
questions,” inquiring, for example, about her relationship with her
husband. Many of the questions made her feel uncomfortable, and she
left the meeting “[c]onfused and very nervous.”
A.B. immediately called her sister, and reported, “I just got done
with a counseling session with Pastor Edouard, and I—it went fine, but
at the end, it was just odd.” Edouard continued to have meetings with
A.B., and Edouard continued to ask her probing questions, often of a
kind that made her feel uncomfortable. She described these questions as
“intellectual” and “constantly-thinking questions that no one has ever
asked me before.” A.B. characterized Edouard’s inquiries as “digging and
26
finding out [her] vulnerabilities.” By this time, they were having sexual
relations.
We find sufficient evidence to sustain Edouard’s convictions on all
of the sexual exploitation counts. There is substantial evidence that he
counseled each of the four women for an “emotional . . . or social
dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunction.”
See Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(d). As required by the district court’s jury
instructions, this went beyond an “informal exchange of advice,” or “the
giving of general spiritual advice or guidance from a clergy member to
congregants.” 4 There is substantial evidence that a relationship was
established between Edouard and each victim, at least initially, “for the
purpose of addressing particular mental, intrapersonal or interpersonal
dysfunctions.” To some extent, as in Allen, it appears sexual contact was
part of Edouard’s program of pseudotherapy and treatment for his
victims. 5
D. Production of Mental Health Records. The four victims in
this case participated in group therapy sessions after Edouard’s conduct
came to light and he resigned from the church. V.B., S.K., and A.B.
voluntarily agreed to waive any privilege with respect to the records of
these sessions. W.B. did not. Nonetheless, the district court ordered
their production and they are not at issue on appeal.
W.B. also went through marital counseling while she was still
seeing Edouard. She underwent additional counseling thereafter. She
declined to waive the privilege as to those records. Edouard argues the
4Instruction 25, which we have upheld, is the law of the case for sufficiency-of-
evidence purposes. See, e.g., State v. Merrett, 842 N.W.2d 266, 275 (Iowa 2014).
5According to V.B., Edouard advised her that she had “all this sexual energy
that needed to be released, and he had to be there to protect me.”
27
records were relevant to show that W.B. was not suffering from “a
cognitive, behavioral, emotional, mental, or social dysfunction, including
an intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunction,” Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(d),
and therefore Edouard could not have been providing mental health
services to her. See id.
The district court denied Edouard’s motion for access to the
records and found he had not met the burden under Cashen or Iowa
Code section 622.10 to show at least a reasonable probability that these
records “contain something that may be exculpatory.” See Iowa Code
§ 622.10; Cashen, 789 N.W.2d at 405. Edouard argues the district court
improperly applied Cashen, and as a result, prejudice is presumed. He
insists the denial of the access to the records violated his right to due
process.
This court developed the Cashen protocol to determine whether a
criminal defendant should have access to the mental health records of a
victim. See Cashen, 789 N.W.2d at 408–10 (requiring a defendant to
make a good faith showing that there is a “reasonable basis to believe the
records are likely to contain exculpatory evidence tending to create a
reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt”); see also Thompson, 836
N.W.2d at 479–80 (discussing the Cashen protocol). However, a 2011
change in the Iowa Code superseded Cashen by providing a defendant
seeking to obtain privileged records must:
demonstrat[e] in good faith a reasonable probability that the
information sought is likely to contain exculpatory
information that is not available from any other source and
for which there is a compelling need for the defendant to
present a defense in the case.
Iowa Code § 622.10(4)(a)(2)(a); see 2011 Iowa Acts ch. 8, § 2 (amending
the statute); Thompson, 836 N.W.2d at 481, 490 (recognizing the
28
amendment as a “reaction to Cashen” and upholding the amended
statute as constitutional on its face). This amendment was in effect at
the time of the hearing on the motion for subpoena, and thus controls in
this case.
We discussed section 622.10(4)(a)(2)(a) in length in Neiderbach,
837 N.W.2d at 195–98. In Neiderbach, the defendant and codefendant
were charged with child endangerment after the victim, their son,
suffered a number of injuries, including permanent brain damage, over a
three-week period shortly after his birth. Id. at 187–89. We concluded
the district court erred by failing to conduct an in camera inspection of
the codefendant’s medical records sought by Neiderbach under section
622.10(4)(a)(2)(a). Id. at 197. We noted the codefendant’s credibility was
“a central issue” in the case and Neiderbach’s “defense strategy included
raising reasonable doubt whether certain injuries may have been
inflicted by [the codefendant] instead of him.” Id. Because the
codefendant gave inconsistent statements, concocted a false story with
Neiderbach to present to hospital staff, and behaved strangely in jail, we
concluded the defendant “ ‘demonstrate[d] in good faith a reasonable
probability that the information sought . . . is likely to contain
exculpatory evidence . . . and for which there is a compelling need for
[the defendant] to present a defense’ within the meaning of section
622.10(4)(a)(2)(a).” Id. at 197 (quoting Iowa Code § 622.10(4)(a)(2)(a)).
We observed that the records of her mental health counselor “may very
well have enabled defense counsel to more effectively cross-examine her
at trial or assisted counsel’s preparation for her deposition.” Id. at 198.
However, despite our conclusion, we declined to reverse
Neiderbach’s conviction outright. Id. Rather, we entered the following
order:
29
Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s ruling
denying [Neiderbach]’s motion for an in camera review of [the
codefendant]’s mental health records and remand the case
for the district court to conduct that review pursuant to
section 622.10(4)(a)(2). If the district court finds no
exculpatory evidence on that review, [Neiderbach]’s
remaining convictions shall remain affirmed. If exculpatory
evidence is found, the district court shall proceed as directed
in section 622.10(4)(a)(2)(c) and (d) and determine whether
[Neiderbach] is entitled to a new trial.
Id.
We recognize that this case presents a different set of facts than
Neiderbach. Rather than seeking the records of a testifying codefendant,
here Edouard seeks the counseling records of one of his alleged victims.
Even after the legislature’s adoption of section 622.10, we reiterated our
recognition of the “importance of maintaining confidentiality in mental
health treatment.” Thompson, 836 N.W.2d at 483. In reviewing the
constitutionality of the legislature’s policy choices contained in section
622.10(4), we stressed a “victim–patient’s constitutional right to privacy
in her mental health records” was protected, in part, by the legislature’s
choice “to have a neutral judge review the victim’s private records, rather
than the advocate for the alleged abuser.” Id. at 487. We determined
this protection, along with others contained in the statute, was a
constitutional way “to balance the competing rights of criminal
defendants and their victims.” Id. at 490.
Having said that, we believe a similar approach to the one we took
in Neiderbach is warranted in this case. W.B. testified that during her
sexual relationship with Edouard, she was also going through marital
counseling at a counseling center. Edouard’s counsel used this fact to
close her cross-examination of W.B. with a flourish:
Q. You and your husband don’t go to marital
counseling with [Edouard]? A. Correct.
30
Q. You go to Pine Rest? A. Right.
Q. And Pine Rest is a counseling center? A. Yes.
Q. And that’s what they do there, is they have
Christian counselors, right? A. Yes.
Q. So you never do actually go to Mr. Edouard for
your counseling? A. Right.
The defense did not ask W.B. about the content of her marital
counseling sessions. However, needing to rehabilitate W.B., the State
then got her to testify on redirect that Edouard went over the same
matters with her that her marital counselor had covered with her:
Q. After you would have a session at Pine Rest with
the marriage counselor, would you tell Pastor Edouard what
the counseling session was about? A. Yes.
Q. Would he ask you? A. Yes.
Q. Would he ask you lots of questions about the
counseling session? A. Yes.
Q. And would you answer his questions? A. Yes.
Q. What kind of questions would he ask about a
counseling session at Pine Rest that you attended with your
husband? A. He wanted to know all the dynamics. He
wanted to know what we said, what she said.
Q. Who is “she”? A. The counselor.
Q. And would you tell him specifics about what she
said and what the two of you talked about with her? A. Yes.
Q. Would you share with him—you said “the
dynamics.” What do you mean by that? A. What did I say?
Q. You said something about “the dynamics” of the
session, he would ask about the dynamics. A. What was
said.
Q. And would you—if the counselor gave you and your
husband a piece of advice that was supposed to help you,
did he ask you whether the counselor gave you advice?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you tell him? A. Yes.
31
Q. Would he express an opinion on whether he agreed
with that? A. Yes.
Q. Would he advise you whether to follow the advice of
that counselor at Pine Rest or not? A. Yes.
Q. Could you explain that? Give us an example.
A. There was oftentimes he did not like the advice that she
gave, and he would tell me a different way to do it or “Just
don’t listen to her.”
Q. And then would you do it her way or his way?
A. His way.
This sequence involving two talented trial lawyers demonstrates
that Edouard’s quest for W.B.’s mental health records was clearly more
than a fishing expedition. Cf. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d at 490 (noting the
absence of “a nexus between the issues at trial and the mental health
treatment received by [the victim]”). Nevertheless, the State argues the
records were not likely to contain exculpatory information for two
reasons. First, the State points out that W.B. consistently admitted her
mental health was fine in 2007 before she started seeing Edouard. Thus,
it contends Edouard did not need those records to establish the absence
of a dysfunction. Second, the State urges that the existence or lack of a
diagnosis is irrelevant to whether Edouard provided “mental health
services.”
We disagree with the State. Although W.B. admitted her mental
health was fine before her sexual relationship with Edouard began, she
described having personal difficulties thereafter. Counseling records for
the time period when W.B. was seeing Edouard and shortly thereafter
would be potentially relevant to the extent they touch upon the nature
and extent of those problems. And while the State insists that a
diagnosed dysfunction is not a required element of the crime, the lack of
diagnosis for such a dysfunction would seem to us an appropriate
32
subject for jury argument. In its closing, the State argued with respect to
W.B.:
What is a mental health service? “. . . . The providing
of treatment, assessment, or counseling to another person
for a cognitive, behavioral, emotional, mental or social
dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or interpersonal
dysfunction.”
In other words, she’s having personal problems, and
[Edouard’s] counseling her for those problems. That’s what
all that fancy language is.
In short, the State argued to the jury that dysfunction means
nothing more than “personal problems.” But a defendant should have
latitude to argue it means something more than that. Perhaps W.B.’s
counseling records would have assisted Edouard in fashioning an
argument that W.B. was not suffering from a dysfunction during any
relevant time period.
In addition to showing a reasonable probability the records might
likely contain exculpatory information necessary to his defense, Edouard
also had to show the information “is not available from any other
source.” See Iowa Code § 622.10(4)(a)(2)(a). We previously pointed out
in Neiderbach that, under certain circumstances, information is not
“available” from another source just because testimony can be obtained
from the patient or client. 837 N.W.2d at 197–98. We believe this is
another one of those situations. Information in the counseling records
could have significantly undermined W.B.’s testimony. We do not know.
Therefore, we reverse the district court’s ruling that denied
Edouard’s request for in camera review of W.B.’s counseling records. We
emphasize the limits of this decision. The crime charged requires the
State to show the defendant counseled W.B. for a dysfunction, and the
record shows W.B. was receiving outside counseling at the same time
33
and shortly thereafter. Also, as in Neiderbach, if the district court finds
no exculpatory evidence, Edouard’s convictions will stand affirmed. See
837 N.W.2d at 198 & n.3. If exculpatory evidence is found, the district
court would then determine if a new trial is required on the Iowa Code
section 709.15(2)(c) count relating to W.B. and the section 709.15(2)(a)
pattern or practice count.
E. Constitutional Challenges. Edouard raises two constitutional
challenges as a part of his appeal. First, he contends that section
709.15(2), as applied to him, unconstitutionally burdens his
fundamental right to enter into sexual relationships. He maintains that
section 709.15(2) “creates a per se ban on all sexual relations between
certain categories of individuals regardless of the existence or
nonexistence of consent,” and that “[i]mplicit in the jury’s verdict finding
Edouard not guilty of sexual abuse in the third degree is the conclusion
that his sexual relationships with all four women were consensual.” In
Edouard’s view, section 709.15(2) is not narrowly tailored to address a
compelling interest using the least restrictive means possible.
Edouard refers to the Due Process Clauses of both the United
States Constitution and the Iowa Constitution in his brief. However, he
does not advance a separate analysis under the Iowa Constitution. For
this reason, we will undertake the same analysis for both claims. See
State v. Kennedy, 846 N.W.2d 517, 522 (Iowa 2014) (stating that “[w]e
jealously protect this court’s authority to follow an independent approach
under our state constitution for provisions of the Iowa Constitution that
are the same or nearly identical to provisions in the United States
Constitution” but choosing not to interpret the Iowa Constitution any
differently from the United States Constitution where the defendant had
34
not proposed a specific test under the Iowa Constitution (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d
508 (2003), the United States Supreme Court overturned the convictions
of two male adults for engaging in consensual sexual conduct. The
Court found the defendants were “free as adults to engage in the private
conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” Id. at 564, 123 S. Ct.
at 2476, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 516. Edouard cites us to Lawrence, but it is
important to note that Lawrence “does not involve persons who might be
injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent
might not easily be refused.” Id. at 578, 123 S. Ct. at 2484, 156
L. Ed. 2d at 525. By contrast, Lawrence involved “two adults who, with
full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices
common to a homosexual lifestyle.” Id.
In State v. Musser, we rejected a constitutional privacy challenge to
Iowa’s statute making it a felony for a person knowing he or she was HIV
positive to engage in intimate conduct with another person who was not
aware of that status. See 721 N.W.2d 734, 748 (Iowa 2006). We found
that Lawrence was “readily distinguishable” because there was “not ‘full
and mutual consent’ ” where one sexual partner was unaware of the
other’s infected status. Id. (quoting Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578, 123
S. Ct. at 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 525). “Consent in the absence of such
knowledge is certainly not a full and knowing consent as was present in
Lawrence.” Id. We also observed that “the sexual partner of an infected
person is at serious risk of injury and even death from the prohibited
sexual contact.” Id.
35
To some extent, the distinctions we recognized in Musser also exist
here. Based upon their testimony, the relationships between Edouard
and each of the four women did not involve full and mutual consent. In
each case, Edouard used—misused—his position of authority as a
counselor to exploit the vulnerabilities of his victim. The relationships
were of a kind where “consent might not easily be refused.” Lawrence,
539 U.S. at 578, 123 S. Ct. at 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 525.
And the women suffered harm. Following her experience with
Edouard, A.B. was “scared” and “struggling.” She later wrote the word
“Freedom” in her husband’s notebook because “[t]he longer you’re out of
[Edouard’s] grip, the more freedom you get.” V.B. felt it “was hard to
keep going” after her experience with Edouard and was afraid of “[l]osing
everything” because she felt no one would believe her over him due to his
reputation in the congregation. S.K. was “trapped,” and felt that
Edouard was “a ball and chain.” After Edouard was exposed, W.B.
“couldn’t eat” and was “losing weight.”
Edouard is not the first person to assert that any sexual
exploitation laws that criminalize consensual sexual relations between
adults are unconstitutional. Similar arguments have been raised,
generally without success, in other jurisdictions. For the most part, the
courts have reasoned that the statutes do not implicate fundamental
rights and are not controlled by Lawrence because the relationship is
imbalanced and not fully consensual. See, e.g., State v. Freitag, 130 P.3d
544, 545–46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006) (rejecting an argument that
prostitution was protected by a “fundamental constitutional right to
engage in adult consensual sexual conduct” as recognized in Lawrence);
Talbert v. State, 239 S.W.3d 504, 511–13 (Ark. 2006) (upholding a
statute that prohibits a member of the clergy from using his or her
36
position of trust and authority to engage in sexual activity with a victim
and finding Lawrence distinguishable); State v. Edwards, 288 P.3d 494,
498–503 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012) (finding a statute that prohibited a teacher
from engaging in sexual activity with an eighteen-year-old student was
subject to a rational basis review, noting, “[w]hen read in its entirety, it is
clear that the intent of this statute is to prohibit sexual conduct of
certain persons who have authority over other persons where the ability
to freely consent is questionable”); State v. Lowe, 861 N.E.2d 512, 515–
18 (Ohio 2007) (determining that Lawrence did not apply and the
defendant did not have a fundamental right to engage in sexual
intercourse with his consenting adult stepdaughter); State v. Green, 989
N.E.2d 1088, 1089–90 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013) (finding no fundamental
right to engage in consensual sexual activity for hire); Ex parte Morales,
212 S.W.3d 483, 490–98 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006) (finding a statute that
criminalized sexual conduct between a dormitory residential advisor and
a student over the age of majority should be reviewed under a rational
basis standard, which it met); see also Flaskamp v. Dearborn Pub. Schs.,
385 F.3d 935, 943 (6th Cir. 2004) (indicating that a ban on relationships
between teachers and their students for one year after graduation would
not be a direct and substantial burden on the right to intimate
association and would be subject to a rational basis review). But see
Paschal v. State, 388 S.W.3d 429, 434–37 (Ark. 2012) (finding a statute
that criminalized sexual conduct between a teacher and an eighteen-
year-old student infringed upon a fundamental right to privacy under the
Arkansas Constitution).
In State v. Hollenbeck, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
confronted a psychologist’s constitutional challenge to a New Hampshire
law that made it a crime for a therapist to have sexual relations with a
37
patient within one year of the termination of the therapeutic relationship
in a manner which is not professionally recognized as ethical. 53 A.3d
591, 593 (N.H. 2012). The court found that “the kind of sexual
relationship alleged here is not included in the constitutional right
Lawrence recognized.” Id. at 598. Rather, the relationship between a
therapist and a former client is the kind of relationship “ ‘where consent
might not easily be refused.’ ” Id. (quoting Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 578,
123 S. Ct. at 2484, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 525). Accordingly, the court applied
a rational basis standard of review and upheld the statute as serving
“legitimate governmental interests in protecting those who are vulnerable
to exploitation from being exploited . . . and in maintaining the integrity
of the mental health profession.” Id. at 598–99.
We find Hollenbeck persuasive here. The statute as applied to this
case does not invade a fundamental right. There is no fundamental right
to engage in sexual relations in circumstances where one partner is in a
position of power or authority over another. There was ample evidence
that Edouard occupied a position of power and authority over each of his
four victims. We would leave open the question whether a substantive
due process challenge to Iowa Code section 709.15 could be successfully
brought in other factual contexts. We also emphasize, as we stated
earlier, that Edouard has not raised a vagueness or overbreadth
challenge to section 709.15 in this case.
Edouard’s other argument is that section 709.15, as applied to
members of the clergy, violates the Establishment Clause of the United
States and Iowa Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. I; Iowa Const.
art. I, § 3; Kliebenstein v. Iowa Conference of United Methodist Church,
663 N.W.2d 404, 406 (Iowa 2003) (noting that “ordinarily the courts have
no jurisdiction over, and no concern with, purely ecclesiastical questions
38
and controversies,” but “do have jurisdiction as to civil, contract, and
property rights which are involved in or arise from a church controversy”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).
In State v. Bussmann, the Minnesota Supreme Court divided
equally on the question whether Minnesota’s clergy sexual conduct
statute—which applies only to members of the clergy—facially violated
the Establishment Clause of the United States and Minnesota
Constitutions. See generally 741 N.W.2d 79 (Minn. 2007).6 A majority of
the court found an Establishment Clause violation as applied to the facts
of the defendant’s trial because “[t]he state relied heavily on religious
expert testimony to prove its case and the court allowed the jury to hear
discussion that intertwined religious doctrine with state law.” Id. at 92.
The court elaborated, “Virtually all of this testimony lacked foundation to
connect it to any secular standard, was irrelevant to any secular
standard, was inadmissible hearsay evidence, and was highly
prejudicial.” Id. at 93. The court concluded:
[T]he district court allowed the state to introduce extensive
evidence regarding the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the
religious power of priests over parishioners; the Church’s
official policy on counseling and pastoral care; the Church’s
concerns about priest sexual misconduct; and the Church’s
official investigation and findings regarding Bussmann’s
behavior. Through the admission of this evidence, the court
allowed the religious doctrine of the Catholic Church to
become entangled with the criteria set out in the clergy
sexual conduct statute for determining the criminality of
Bussmann’s conduct. The jury’s verdict was based on this
evidence, and was unavoidably entangled with the religious
doctrine introduced into evidence by the state.
6Minnesota’s statute makes it a crime for anyone who “is or purports to be a
member of the clergy” to have sexual intercourse with another person “during a period
of time in which the complainant was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to
seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.344 subd. 1(l)(ii) (West, Westlaw current through 2014 Reg. Sess.).
39
Id. at 94.
Subsequently, in State v. Wenthe, the Minnesota Supreme Court
held that Minnesota’s clergy sexual conduct statute did not facially
violate the Establishment Clause, because it was “part of a larger
statutory scheme that regulates the behavior of those involved in . . .
relationships for which the Legislature has determined there is a power
imbalance between the parties” and “applies neutral principles of law
and regulates only secular aspects of clergy–parishioner relationships.”
839 N.W.2d 83, 88–91 (Minn. 2013).
The court also upheld the constitutionality statute as applied to
the facts of the case because “the State did not attempt to shift the jury’s
focus away from the secular elements in the clergy-sexual-conduct
statute and onto religious doctrine.” Id. at 92. In Wenthe, unlike
Bussmann, there was no testimony by a Catholic priest and a Catholic
counselor about the religious power of priests, only a minimal amount of
evidence admitted by the state related to the policies of the Catholic
Church on pastoral care, and the state’s evidence about the church’s
response to the sexual relationship was factually relevant to the case.
Wenthe, 839 N.W.2d at 93–95.
We do not find section 709.15 violates the Establishment Clause
as applied to clergy. As the State points out, the statute, unlike
Minnesota’s, is essentially neutral. It applies to all persons who provide
or purport to provide mental health services. Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(a).
Edouard notes the State’s emphasis during trial on the victims’ faith and
on Edouard’s status as the victims’ pastor. But these were relevant
evidentiary considerations because they showed why the victims would
allow Edouard to have sex with them even as they were receiving mental
health services from him. Edouard also overlooks the fact the case, as
40
tried, included three counts of sexual abuse. Evidence regarding
Edouard’s status and the victims’ faith was particularly relevant to the
sexual abuse counts, because it tended to explain why three of the four
victims would later be willing to have sex with a person who had initially
forced them to have sex with him. 7 Edouard, of course, does not contend
that Iowa’s sexual abuse statute violates the Establishment Clause. See
Iowa Code § 709.1.
As in Wenthe, while the trial certainly did not veer away from the
religious setting in which the defendant’s conduct took place, it did not
dwell on religious doctrine either. The defendant, not the State, sought
to introduce evidence on standards of pastoral care. In addition to the
victims themselves, the only witnesses called by the State were a
psychologist as a rebuttal witness and two church elders. The elders
testified primarily as fact witnesses to admissions and statements made
in meetings after Edouard’s conduct began to come to light. In the
course of cross-examining the first elder, Edouard’s counsel delved to
some extent into the Covenant Reformed Church’s mission. By doing so,
Edouard’s counsel was able to get this elder to admit, helpfully, that
Edouard was expected to provide spiritual guidance—but not mental
health services—to parishioners.
Notably, when the second elder was asked about his concerns
regarding his congregation and its members, and Edouard objected on
the basis of relevance, the district court sustained the objection. The
court explained:
Counsel, it seems to me that the discussions which
took place between Mr. Edouard and members of the church
7Edouard’s counsel attacked the sexual abuse charges during closing argument
on this very ground.
41
are certainly relevant to the extent that they are his
statements, but I’m concerned that the actions of the church
and the positions of the church really don’t have a bearing
on the legal issues that are before the court.
Whether the church in its hierarchy and its
functioning made a determination that Pastor Edouard had
sinned, that he should be removed in some manner from his
duties with the church, or that the church should in some
manner sanction him, I have trouble believing that that is
relevant to the issues in this case for this jury; and that the
inclination would be for the jury to in some manner,
essentially, be assisted by the findings of the church, which
would be inappropriate in this case.
This incident illustrates the district court’s sensitivity to the
potential crossover between church canons and secular laws. It
demonstrates the court enforced proper boundaries. While we would not
foreclose an as-applied challenge in a future case, we are not persuaded
by Edouard’s Establishment Clause arguments here.
F. Other Evidentiary Rulings. Before trial, the State filed a
motion in limine seeking to exclude any reference to evidence that
Edouard’s home in Pella was vandalized or that his family had been
harassed after his sexual encounters with his parishioners came to light.
This included evidence of a brick being thrown through his window and
that his home and personal belongings were posted for sale on Craigslist,
along with other evidence of harassment and vandalism.
In response to the motion, Edouard argued the evidence was
relevant to explain why he left the Pella community after his conduct
came to light. The court concluded:
In a general sense, the court believes that the evidence
regarding allegations of a brick being thrown through a
window, postings on Craigslist regarding the defendant’s
property, or reports of vandalism or harassment at the
defendant’s home in 2010 and 2011 is not relevant, at least
of any apparent nature at this point.
It appears to the court that such evidence, if admitted,
would merely confuse the jury, would distract the jurors
42
from the issues in the case which they must decide, and that
it has little, if any, probative value in this case. If, in fact, it
becomes apparent that there is a basis for admitting the
evidence, the court certainly is willing to take another look at
that, if raised by the defendant prior to the admission of the
evidence.
The defendant presented his evidence in an offer of proof at trial.
Edouard testified that, before the four women actually went to the police,
a rock was thrown through his sons’ bedroom window while they were
sleeping. Additionally, spikes were placed behind the wheels of his
vehicles in his driveway, his home and personal belongings were listed
for sale on Craigslist along with his home telephone number, pizzas he
had not ordered were delivered to his home, and the husband of one of
the victims followed him “on a couple of occasions.”
The questioning in the offer of proof ended as follows:
Q. Did all of these acts influence your decision to
move to Michigan when you did? A. Yes. Absolutely.
Q. Why? A. Well, evidently we were not safe there.
But also, it became clear to me that my presence probably
was a lightning rod. I didn’t want my children to be
subjected to that kind of harassment. I wanted for there to
be healing as soon as possible, and I thought my absence
would be the first building block toward that.
Edouard maintains this information is relevant as the “threats and
fear explain Edouard’s hesitancy in answering questions about the
allegations to the church elders, his general withdrawal from his
friendships within the church, and his abrupt move out of Iowa.” The
State, however, argues the jury did not need this explanation.
We agree with the State. Edouard had admittedly engaged in
sexual relations with four married women from his congregation. As he
explained to the jury, “[T]he sins for which I resigned warranted my
deposition as a minister.” He testified that he was “censured” and “did
not contest it.” All this was scandalous enough for the jury to
43
understand why he left town. A jury would not conclude that Edouard
believed he was guilty of a crime just because he moved to Michigan. We
see no abuse of discretion.
Edouard also attempted to offer evidence that one of the victims,
V.B., had an extramarital affair with another man, R.M., after having
sexual relations with Edouard and before making any allegations against
Edouard. Edouard indicated that V.B. told him about the details of this
sexual relationship with R.M. and asked him to lie about it to her
husband. Edouard argued the information was relevant for three
reasons: (1) the fact she shared this type of information with Edouard
about the second affair shows their relationship was one of friendship,
not counseling; (2) the nature of the relationship V.B. had with R.M. was
very similar to the relationship she had with Edouard, and she later lied
to her husband about R.M. so it “is exactly the same kind of lie we
believe she would be telling about Mr. Edouard”; and (3) the fact she gave
$2000 to R.M. undermines the suggestion that the monetary gifts she
gave to Edouard were as a result of any type of power relationship
between the two.
The court determined the evidence of the affair was “squarely
within the provisions of the rape shield law.” It concluded evidence of
the affair or money gift amounted to an argument that V.B. had “the
same type of relationship the defendant claims” and “would be no
different than a defendant claiming that the alleged victim had engaged
in consensual sex with 15 other individuals and that that should be
admitted as proof that the relationship with the defendant was
consensual, which is precisely what is precluded by the rule.”
Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412(a) states, “[I]n a criminal case in
which a person is accused of sexual abuse, reputation or opinion
44
evidence of the past sexual behavior of an alleged victim of such sexual
abuse is not admissible.” The purpose of this rule “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). However, “evidence of
a victim’s past sexual behavior other than reputation or opinion
evidence” is admissible if it is “constitutionally required to be admitted.”
Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(b)(1). Additionally, the rule contains a balancing
test, identical to that contained in rule 5.403, for the admission of
evidence under 5.412(b). Id. r. 5.412(c)(3) (“If the court determines on
the basis of the hearing described in rule 5.412(c)(2) that the evidence
which the accused seeks to offer is relevant and the probative value of
such evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, such evidence
shall be admissible in the trial to the extent an order made by the court
specifies evidence which may be offered and areas with respect to which
the alleged victim may be examined or cross-examined.”).
We have held that even if evidence of specific instances of sexual
conduct is relevant, the defendant has no constitutional right to
introduce that evidence when its probative value is outweighed by its
prejudicial effect. See State v. Mitchell, 568 N.W.2d 493, 498–99 (Iowa
1997) (refusing to allow evidence of a victim’s sexually transmitted
diseases which the defendant did not contract because “the probative
value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice” and stating, “relevant evidence is not constitutionally
required to be admitted if the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs
the probative value”); State v. Jones, 490 N.W.2d 787, 791 (Iowa 1992)
(noting there is no constitutional requirement to admit evidence of
45
victim’s past sexual history where it is “more prejudicial than probative
for the purposes urged”).
In this case, it is highly questionable whether the evidence was
even relevant. The argument that the disclosure of private information
about an individual’s sexual liaisons with others is indicative of a
friendship rather than a counseling relationship does not seem logical. It
is certainly not unheard of for an individual to discuss an extramarital
affair with a counselor or to request one’s counselor to keep that
information secret.
Additionally, the fact that V.B. lied to her husband about an affair
with another man would add little, if anything, of value to Edouard’s
defense. V.B. admittedly lied to her husband about the money she gave
Edouard, and of course she kept the entire sexual relationship with
Edouard secret from her husband.
Finally, V.B.’s willingness to give a far more modest ($2000 as
opposed to $70,000) financial gift to another person with whom she had
a later affair would not make it much less likely that her relationship
with Edouard was an uneven one in which he acted as her counselor.
The district court in this case correctly concluded the evidence of
V.B.’s alleged affair fell within the protection of the rape shield law, rule
5.412. The court noted the testimony had a clear prejudicial effect: It
would tend to suggest that because V.B. had a consensual affair with
another individual, she therefore had a consensual affair with Edouard.
We find no error in the district court’s ruling.
G. Restitution. Finally, Edouard claims the district court erred
with respect to the restitution it awarded against him. Each of the
women and two of their spouses received payments from the crime
46
victim compensation program (CVCP). See Iowa Code § 915.86. 8 The
State sought to charge those payments against Edouard. See id.
§ 910.2(1). At the restitution hearing, the State called to the stand the
restitution subrogation coordinator from the crime victim assistance
division. The State also presented six exhibits—the crime victim
assistance division’s files for all four victims and two of the victims’
husbands. Following this hearing, the court ordered that the State’s
CVCP could recoup a total of $12,956.74 in restitution from Edouard.
In State v. Jenkins, we held that amounts paid to victims by the
CVCP may not be automatically charged back to the defendant. 788
N.W.2d 640, 645–47 (Iowa 2010). Rather, there may be a review by the
district court to determine whether the statutory causation
requirements of Iowa Code section 915.86 have been met. Id. at 647.
The district court conducted such a review here but Edouard challenges
its sufficiency.
Specifically, Edouard claims the State’s witness had no firsthand
knowledge that the treatment received by the victims could be linked to
his criminal conduct. He maintains a causal connection cannot be
shown simply by calling a witness who brings in paperwork completed
by others.
The State’s witness testified to the manner in which requests for
compensation are approved by the crime victim assistance division:
In every claim that is filed with our office, the victim
signs a release of information, and they put on the release
who the providers are that they want assistance with for
payment. And also on the application there is a place to
8Under certain circumstances, spouses can be eligible to receive victim
compensation as “secondary victims,” such as for mental health care and
transportation. See Iowa Code §§ 915.80(5), .86(12), (15).
47
mark what benefits they’re seeking. So based on that
information, we send out . . . request forms to those
providers and they complete them. And we also ask for
itemized statements and the medical records, and then the
compensation specialist reviews that and determines
whether or not it is crime related.
And . . . then we have a quality control system also
that reviews that file to make sure that everything was done
right.
She further testified that each mental health or medical provider also fills
out a verification form regarding the treatments that indicates whether
the service was related to the crime.
In this case, the providers in question had attested in writing that
all the treatments were related to the crime. Each exhibit contained a
form signed by the treatment provider that verified the treatments in
question were “provided as a direct result of the crime.” The coordinator
also confirmed this in her testimony. Edouard did not attempt to present
any evidence of his own but did vigorously cross-examine the
coordinator.
We do not believe restitution proceedings are subject to strict rules
of evidence. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.1101(c)(4) (stating the rules of evidence
do not apply in sentencing proceedings). In the review of a restitution
order, “ ‘we determine whether the court’s findings lack substantial
evidentiary support, or whether the court has not properly applied the
law.’ ” Hagen, 840 N.W.2d at 144 (quoting State v. Bonstetter, 637
N.W.2d 161, 165 (Iowa 2001)). As the district court explained,
[t]he court has reviewed the mental health services provided
to the victims, and to the secondary victims, to the extent
the notes and records are available, and finds that the State
has established the propriety of assessing those mental
health costs as part of the restitution herein.
We uphold as supported by substantial evidence the district court’s
conclusion that the mental health care costs charged to Edouard were
48
incurred “as a direct result” of Edouard’s crimes. See Iowa Code
§ 915.86(1); see also id. § 910.2(1) (requiring sentencing courts to order
offenders to make restitution “to the victims of the offender’s criminal
activities”).
Next, Edouard contests the travel expenses granted for attendance
at trial. 9 Edouard maintains these were costs of prosecution that
should not have been charged against him. However, Iowa Code section
915.86(15) makes clear that victims can be compensated for
“[r]easonable expenses incurred by the victim [or] secondary victim,”
including “for transportation to medical, counseling, . . . or criminal
justice proceedings, not to exceed one thousand dollars per person.”
The district court’s award was therefore proper.
Edouard’s reliance on State v. Knudsen is misplaced. See 746
N.W.2d 608, 610 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). True, the court of appeals there
noted that prosecution costs generally cannot be included in a
restitution order. See id. But the difference here is the State is seeking
reimbursement for crime victim assistance as opposed to direct
restitution. See Iowa Code § 910.2(1). The crime victim assistance
statute specifically authorizes compensation to victims for
transportation expenses under the circumstances presented here. See
id. § 915.86(15). The State produced evidence to support the victims’
claims of trial attendance.
Edouard’s third argument is that the victims were not eligible for
compensation under Iowa Code section 915.87(2)(a) because they
consented to their relationships with Edouard. That subsection
9As noted above, the trial location was changed from Marion County, where the
victims resided, to Dallas County.
49
provides that victim compensation “shall not be made when the bodily
injury or death for which a benefit is sought was caused by . . .
[c]onsent, provocation, or incitement by the victim.” Id. § 915.87(2)(a).
The trial court correctly found this provision did not apply. It would
miss the entire point of the counselor–therapist sexual exploitation law
to hold that these victims’ mental health injuries were caused by their
“consent,” as opposed to the conduct of the defendant, which we have
described in detail above.
Finally, Edouard urges that the trial court erroneously overruled
an objection that the victims had failed to comply with certain
limitations and reporting requirements contained in Iowa Code sections
915.84(1) and (2). The first subsection requires a victim seeking
compensation to apply within two years after “the date of the crime” or
“the discovery of the crime,” and the second subsection indicates an
individual is not eligible for compensation “unless the crime was
reported to the local police department or county sheriff department
within seventy-two hours of its occurrence” or “within seventy-two hours
of the time a report can reasonably be made” if it cannot be reasonably
reported within seventy-two hours of its occurrence. Id. § 915.84(1)–(2).
However, both subsections also indicate the department of justice may
waive the time limitation and reporting requirements “if good cause is
shown.” Id.
Edouard points out that some of the victims used the date of their
police reports, January 2011, as the crime date, despite the fact that
much of the sexual abuse and exploitation occurred years before. He
argues the crimes were not reported within seventy-two hours of their
commission and reimbursement was not sought within two years of the
crime. Therefore, unless good cause was shown, the victims and
50
secondary victims (i.e., the spouses) were not eligible for compensation
under the statute.
The State argues, in effect, that Edouard has no standing to raise a
claim of untimeliness because “the decision is between the agency and
the applicant” whether to award compensation from the CVCP. We
disagree. We think the rationale of Jenkins holds otherwise. Regardless
of whether the State has paid some amount to a victim of crime, in order
to recover that same amount from the defendant as restitution it must
show it complied with the underlying law. Otherwise stated, defendants
should be able “to challenge erroneous CVCP payments.” Jenkins, 788
N.W.2d at 645.
The State’s witness did testify that a timeliness review is regularly
performed and that a memo is usually prepared if an extension of time is
approved. However, the memo is “considered confidential.” The witness
did not know if a memo existed in this case.
We believe this evidence is insufficient to establish the department
for justice actually found good cause. Indeed, if it were deemed
sufficient, no defendant would ever be able to raise a timeliness
challenge. Admittedly, we have not previously held that Jenkins permits
a defendant to object to a CVCP restitution award on the ground that the
deadlines were not waived for good cause. Therefore, we believe the
appropriate course of action is to reverse and remand to give the State
the opportunity to introduce evidence that the CVCP waived any
deadlines in sections 915.84(1) or (2) for good cause shown.
IV. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, we conditionally affirm Edouard’s
conviction and sentence under Iowa Code section 709.15(4)(a) and his
conviction and sentence under section 709.15(4)(c) with respect to W.B.
51
We affirm Edouard’s remaining convictions. We reverse the restitution
award to the State. We remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART;
CASE REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
All justices concur except Appel, J., and Cady, C.J., who concur
specially, and Hecht and Wiggins, JJ., who concur in part and dissent in
part.
52
#86/12–1899, State v. Edouard
APPEL, Justice (concurring specially).
Part I.
I agree with Justice Mansfield’s opinion regarding the proper
interpretation of Iowa’s sexual exploitation statute. I do not join,
however, the discussion of the state constitutional issues presented in
this case. Instead, I present a different analysis, which today, as it has
in many recent cases, commands the support of the majority of the
court.
Part II.
Where a party raises issues under the Iowa Constitution and the
Federal Constitution, but does not suggest a different standard be
applied under the Iowa Constitution, we generally apply the federal
standard. This comes, however, with an important and indeed critical
caveat, namely, that we reserve the right to apply that standard
differently than its federal counterpart. See, e.g., Freeman v. Grain
Processing Corp., 848 N.W.2d 58, 93 (Iowa 2014) (“[W]here a party does
not suggest a different standard under Iowa law, we adopt for the
purposes of the case the federal standard, reserving the right to apply the
standard differently than under the federal cases.”); State v. Ragland,
836 N.W.2d 107, 113 (Iowa 2013) (noting “we . . . reserve the right to
apply the [federal standard] in a more stringent fashion than federal
precedent”); State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 172, 174 (Iowa 2013)
(applying federal standards but explicitly reserving the right to apply
those standards “in a more stringent fashion than federal precedents”);
State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 291–92 (Iowa 2013) (“Where a party
raises both state and federal constitutional claims but does not argue
that a standard independent of the federal approach should be employed
53
under the state constitution, we ordinarily apply the substantive federal
standards but reserve the right to apply the standard in a fashion
different from federal precedent.”); State v. Becker, 818 N.W.2d 135, 150
(Iowa 2012) (“Even where a party has not provided a substantive
standard independent of federal law, we reserve the right to apply the
standard presented by the party in a fashion different than the federal
cases.”); NextEra Energy Res., LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30, 45
(Iowa 2012) (“Even in cases where a party has not suggested that our
approach under the Iowa Constitution should be different from that
under the Federal Constitution, we reserve the right to apply the
standard in a fashion at variance with federal cases under the Iowa
Constitution.”); State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 650 (Iowa 2012) (“[W]e
do not necessarily apply the federal standards in the same way as the
United States Supreme Court.”); State v. Breuer, 808 N.W.2d 195, 200
(Iowa 2012) (“[E]ven when the parties advance no substantive distinction,
we may apply the principles differently.”); State v. Pals, 805 N.W.2d 767,
771–72 (Iowa 2011) (“Even where a party has not advanced a different
standard for interpreting a state constitutional provision, we may apply
the standard more stringently than federal case law.”); State v. Fannon,
799 N.W.2d 515, 519 n.1 (Iowa 2011) (“[A]lthough we reserve the right to
apply the principles differently, we generally assume that the legal
principles governing both provisions are the same.”); King v. State, 797
N.W.2d 565, 571 (Iowa 2011) (“Even in . . . cases in which no substantive
distinction ha[s] been made between state and federal constitutional
provisions, we reserve the right to apply the principles differently under
the state constitution . . . .”); Simmons v. State Pub. Defender, 791
N.W.2d 69, 76 n.3 (Iowa 2010) (“Even in cases where no substantive
distinction has been advanced by the parties [between Iowa and federal
54
constitutional law], we reserve the right to apply the principles
differently.”); State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 883 (Iowa 2009) (“[W]e
do not necessarily apply the federal standards in the same way as the
United States Supreme Court.”); Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, 878
n.6 (Iowa 2009) (“[W]e have jealously guarded our right to employ a
different analytical framework under the state equal protection clause as
well as to independently apply the federally formulated principles.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.)); In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W.2d 645, 648
(Iowa 2004) (“In analyzing claims under the Iowa Equal Protection
Clause, we independently apply federal principles.”); Racing Ass’n of
Cent. Iowa v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 6–7 (Iowa 2004) (“[T]his court’s
independent application of the rational basis test might result in a
dissimilar outcome from that reached by the Supreme Court in
considering the federal constitutional claim.”). Of course, this
established principle does not necessarily mean that we will depart from
federal applications, as our independent judgment may lead us to agree
with the federal caselaw. See Breuer, 808 N.W.2d at 200–01 (recognizing
authority to depart in application of federal caselaw but declining to do
so). As noted by Robert F. Williams, a leading expert on state
constitutional law, “State courts might even agree with the United States
Supreme Court on the meaning—both textually and historically—of
identical or similar federal and state constitutional provisions, but
proceed to apply them differently under particular circumstances.”
Robert F. Williams, State Courts Adopting Federal Constitutional Doctrine:
Case-By-Case Adoptionism or Prospective Lockstepping?, 46 Wm. & Mary
L. Rev. 1499, 1501 (2005).
The distinction between a standard and its application is especially
important where the legal principles have high degrees of generality,
55
such as “totality of circumstances” tests, tests based upon “gross
proportionality,” and tests based upon “reasonableness.” See Robert F.
Williams, The Law of American State Constitutions 169–71 (2009); cf.
Jeffrey S. Sutton, What Does—and Does Not—Ail State Constitutional
Law, 59 U. Kan. L. Rev. 687, 707 (2011) [hereinafter Sutton]. 10 Even
accepting the generalized standard, there is often no single correct
answer to the interpretation of generalized constitutional commands, but
only a range of plausible answers which must be decided on a case-by-
case basis with the exercise of independent judgment. See Chicago &
N.W. Ry. v. Fachman, 255 Iowa 989, 996, 125 N.W.2d 210, 214 (1963)
(noting in the context of state and federal equal protection claims that
“[w]hile the general rules applicable in such cases seem pretty well
settled, as is so often the case the difficulty arises in their application”).
A majority of the court today reaffirms the principle articulated in our
many cases, namely, that where a party raises both state and federal
constitutional claims, we generally apply the federal standard but reserve
the right to apply the standard in a fashion different and more stringent
from federal caselaw. To the extent there is any implication by silence in
10As noted by Judge Sutton:
Why the meaning of a federal guarantee proves the meaning of an
independent state guarantee is rarely explained and often seems
inexplicable. If the court decisions of another sovereign ought to bear on
the inquiry, those of a sister state should have more to say about the
point. State constitutions are more likely to share historical and cultural
similarities. They necessarily will cover smaller jurisdictions. And in
almost all instances they will be construing individual-liberty guarantees
that originated in state constitutions, not the Federal Constitution . . . .
Sutton, 59 U. of Kan. L. Rev. at 708. See generally State v. Baldon, 829 N.W.2d 785,
803–35 (Iowa 2013) (Appel, J., concurring specially) (discussing the historic role of state
constitutions in the protection of individual rights and the status of independent state
constitutional law after the incorporation of the Bill of Rights). .
56
our cases that do not explicitly cite this well-established principle, we
reject it.
Turning to the merits of the constitutional claims presented in this
case, we conclude Edouard has not advanced a separate standard for
analysis under the Iowa Constitution, and therefore apply the general
standard in the federal caselaw. Based on the available cases applying
the generally applicable standards, we narrowly conclude, as does
Justice Mansfield, that, as applied under the facts and circumstances of
this case, the sexual exploitation statute does not invade a fundamental
right under the United States Constitution. See State v. Hollenbeck, 53
A.3d 591, 597–98 (N.H. 2012) (concluding constitutional right recognized
in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508(2003) does not extend to imbalanced relationships that are not fully
consensual). We similarly conclude that Edouard has not shown the
statute as applied to him violates the Establishment Clause under the
United States Constitution, largely for the reasons discussed in Justice
Mansfield’s opinion. Cf. State v. Wenthe, 839 N.W.2d 83, 88–91 (Minn.
2013) (“But the inclusion of religious actors [in the Minnesota clergy-
sexual-conduct statute] does not violate the Establishment Clause
because the limitation on members of the clergy is part of a larger
statutory scheme that regulates the behavior of those involved in certain
sexual relationships—relationships for which the Legislature has
determined there is a power imbalance between the parties.”). We then
proceed to the next step in the analysis and decline to apply the
substantive standards advanced by Edouard in a fashion different from
the prevailing caselaw under the Iowa Constitution. We decline to apply
the legal standards on these issues differently than in Hollenbeck and
Wenthe under the Iowa Constitution because we are persuaded that the
57
legal standards accepted by those parties have been sensibly applied in
those cases. As a result, we reject the specific constitutional claims
raised by Edouard in this case under both the United States and Iowa
Constitutions.
Cady, C.J., joins this special concurrence; Wiggins and Hecht, JJ.,
join in Part II only.
58
#12-1899, State v. Edouard
HECHT, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in that part of the majority’s opinion reversing the district
court’s ruling denying Patrick Edouard’s request for in camera review of
W.B.’s counseling records. I respectfully dissent from the remainder of
the majority’s opinion because I believe Edouard was prejudiced by the
district court’s failure to properly instruct the jury and its abuse of
discretion in excluding expert testimony that would have been helpful to
the jury and essential to the defense. I would therefore reverse the
convictions and remand for a new trial.
Edouard served as the pastor of the Covenant Reformed Church in
Pella, Iowa, from 2003 to 2010. At various times during that seven-year
period, Edouard engaged in sexual relationships with four female
members of his congregation. Details of the relationships first emerged
in December 2010, and in the next few weeks, Edouard and each of the
four women had confessed the relationships to their church elders.
In January 2011, the women attended group therapy sessions in
which they discussed with each other their relationships with Edouard.
After attending the therapy sessions, the women filed a report with the
Pella police department, alleging each “was the subject of [Edouard’s]
counseling and pastoral care.” Edouard was later charged with four
counts of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist, in violation of
Iowa Code section 709.15(2)(c); one count of a pattern, practice, or
scheme to engage in sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist, in
violation of Iowa Code section 709.15(2)(a); and three counts of third
degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1).
Before trial, the State moved to limit the expert testimony of
Dr. Hollida Wakefield, an expert offered by Edouard to explain several
59
features of the relationships to the jury and to aid him in presenting his
defense that he had not been providing mental health services, for
purposes of the statute, in any of the four relationships. More
specifically, the State sought to exclude any testimony about differences
between pastoral care and pastoral counseling and any testimony
indicating Edouard may have been engaged in the former, but not the
latter, with each of the women. That testimony, the State argued, would
be unhelpful and misleading to the jury and would constitute an
improper legal conclusion. The district court granted the motion,
concluding Wakefield’s definitions would be of no assistance in
explaining the statutory meanings of mental health services or
counseling to the jury and would improperly invade the “function of the
jury.”
At trial, Edouard contended he had not, in any of the four
relationships, acted as a “counselor or therapist” providing “mental
health services” under the meaning of section 709.15. He moved for
judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, and
later renewed the motion at the conclusion of the trial, contending the
State had failed to present sufficient evidence of sexual exploitation
under the requirements of the statute. The district court denied these
motions.
Upon conclusion of the ten-day trial, Edouard submitted to the
court a proposed marshaling instruction for the jury. His proposed
instruction enumerated the specific professions set forth in the definition
of “counselor or therapist” in section 709.15(1)(a), with additional
language clarifying that the definition required a “formal counseling
relationship.” Edouard also requested an instruction indicating a
conviction under section 709.15 required proof that one or more of the
60
women had been his “patient or client.” Finally, he requested an
instruction defining “mental health services” and incorporating
definitions we have used in previous cases for the statutory terms
“treatment,” “assessment,” and “counseling.” The district court denied
these requests and gave its own less detailed instructions over Edouard’s
objection.
After deliberation, the jury found Edouard guilty of each of the four
counts of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist and guilty of the
pattern or practice count. He was acquitted of the three counts of sexual
abuse.
Edouard appealed the convictions, and we transferred the case to
the court of appeals. Along with challenges to the district court’s rulings
on his expert evidence and his proposed marshaling instructions,
Edouard raised additional evidentiary challenges and a constitutional
challenge to the application of section 709.15 to his conduct and to other
members of the clergy engaging in similar conduct. The court of appeals
concluded the trial court had abused its discretion in declining to give
Edouard’s proposed instruction on “mental health services,” found
Edouard had suffered prejudice as a result of the error, and reversed the
convictions. Although unnecessary to its resolution of the case, the
court of appeals also noted the district court had erred in excluding the
portions of Dr. Wakefield’s testimony regarding pastoral care and
pastoral counseling. Having resolved the case on the instructional
ground and given guidance regarding the expert testimony, the court of
appeals declined to reach Edouard’s other challenges. I believe the court
of appeals correctly decided these issues, and I would affirm its opinion
for the reasons explained below.
61
Section 709.15 prohibits a “counselor or therapist” from engaging
in a number of enumerated forms of sexual conduct with an “emotionally
dependent patient or client” who receives “mental health services” from
the counselor or therapist. See Iowa Code § 709.15(2)(c) (2013). The
section defines “counselor or therapist” as
a physician, psychologist, nurse, professional counselor,
social worker, marriage or family therapist, alcohol or drug
counselor, member of the clergy, or any other person,
whether or not licensed or registered by the state, who
provides or purports to provide mental health services.
Id. § 709.15(1)(a). “Mental health service” is defined as “the treatment,
assessment, or counseling of another person for a cognitive, behavioral,
emotional, mental, or social dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or
interpersonal dysfunction.” Id. § 709.15(1)(d). A “patient or client” is “a
person who receives mental health services from the counselor or
therapist.” Id. § 709.15(1)(e). The provision also provides a meaning for
“emotionally dependent,” defining it as “the nature of the patient’s . . .
emotional condition or the nature of the treatment provided . . . is such
that the counselor or therapist knows or has reason to know that the
patient . . . is significantly impaired in the ability to withhold consent.”
Id. § 709.15(1)(b).
In examining the application of section 709.15 to specific
relationships in the past, we have explained we must assess not just
isolated words and phrases in the statute, but the section in its entirety,
and we must look for an interpretation best achieving the statute’s
purpose. State v. Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d 304, 308 (Iowa 2006). In
discerning the meaning of the phrase “mental health services,” we have
noted it cannot “encompass strictly personal relationships involving the
informal exchange of advice.” State v. Allen, 565 N.W.2d 333, 337 (Iowa
62
1997). Instead, when we have analyzed the meaning and purpose of
section 709.15 in the past, we have emphasized the specialized, technical
meaning of mental health services and its close association with forms of
therapy provided by professionals. Id.; Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at 308–09.
In Allen, for example, we encountered a case of a woman who
suffered severe emotional problems in connection with significant marital
strain and due, at least in part, to physical and mental abuse she had
suffered as a child. Allen, 565 N.W.2d at 335. She had been hospitalized
frequently in the course of dealing with these problems and had several
times attempted suicide. Id. After a particularly challenging pregnancy
and pregnancy-related surgery, she began to experience physical
symptoms, which went unabated despite medical and psychiatric
treatment. Id. Eventually, she sought the assistance of an unlicensed
hypnotherapist. Id. In several lengthy meetings over the course of four
months, the hypnotherapist supplied her with alcoholic beverages and
initiated and escalated intimate physical contact with her, assuring her
“that such physical contact would help her to recover from the effects of
the sexual abuse she had endured as a child.” Id.
The hypnotherapist was eventually charged with and convicted of
sexual exploitation under section 709.15. Id. at 336. On appeal, the
hypnotherapist did not deny that he was a counselor or therapist for
purposes of the statute, and likewise, did not dispute that he had
provided, or at least purported to provide, mental health services. Id.
Instead, he contended section 709.15 was unconstitutionally vague. Id.
Analyzing section 709.15 for purposes of that contention, we explained
we would not entertain the “challenge unless the statute reache[d]” a
significant amount of protected conduct. Id. at 337. We concluded
section 709.15 presented no such danger of substantial encroachment,
63
because it clearly did not reach “informal exchange of advice” or
“ordinary conversations.” Id. Moreover, we explained, the statute would
not typically apply to “innocuous event[s]” in “romantic relationship[s],”
and would rarely, “if ever, apply to a marriage relationship.” Id. at 338.
The relationship at issue in Allen was much different, we explained: the
hypnotherapist had at all times been acting “[a]s a therapist,” and in a
“professional role[].” Id. at 337 n.2. Later in our analysis of the
hypnotherapist’s challenges to his convictions, we emphasized the victim
had sought the hypnotherapist out for help with her physical symptoms
associated with her long history of mental health problems, and that he
had engaged in his problematic contact with her while she was “in his
office for treatment” for these issues. Id. at 339. Given those indications
of a professional treatment relationship, we affirmed the hypnotherapist’s
convictions. Id. at 340.
In Gonzalez, we had occasion to analyze the meaning of the phrase
“mental health services” more directly and extensively, as the defendant
challenged directly, in a pretrial motion to dismiss, the allegations that
he had been working as a counselor or therapist and had been providing
mental health services. Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at 307–08. The defendant
in Gonzalez worked as a nursing assistant in the psychiatric unit of the
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, and had been charged with
sexual exploitation as a result of invasive physical contact with a female
patient. Id. at 306. The trial court granted the nursing assistant’s
motion to dismiss, determining the assistant had not, even accepting
various allegations by the State as true, been providing mental health
services within the meaning of section 709.15. Id. The State appealed.
Id.
64
Analyzing on appeal the nursing assistant’s contention he had not
been providing mental health services, we parsed the phrase’s
component parts of “treatment,” “assessment,” and “counseling” “for
certain dysfunctions.” Id. at 308. We consulted a dictionary to
illuminate the meanings of these terms and recognized each incorporated
a specific, technical meaning, typically associated with professional
diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, for purposes of the statute. Id.
Armed with that understanding, we concluded the nursing assistant
might reasonably be found to have provided treatment for purposes of
section 709.15, given the allegations that he performed essential tasks in
“providing care of psychiatric patients,” he assisted in “providing for a
therapeutic environment,” and he participated “in planning patient care.”
Id. Similarly, we explained, he may have provided assessment “because
he performed nursing tasks to assist in monitoring psychiatric patients,”
and had assisted with the documenting and reporting of patient
behavior. Id. Most importantly, we emphasized, the nursing assistant
might reasonably be found to have provided “treatment and assessment”
to the patient because he had performed his tasks while she was
admitted in the psychiatric unit for psychiatric care. Id. at 308–09.
Given the existence of that professional treatment environment and
relationship, we concluded, the nursing assistant’s provision of certain
services might reasonably have “qualifie[d] him as a ‘counselor’ or
‘therapist’ for purposes of Iowa Code section 709.15,” and thus we
reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for trial. Id. at 310.
Emerging from these analyses is a clear picture of the meaning of
section 709.15 and its counselor or therapist and mental health services
requirements. The statute proscribes certain specified forms of conduct
undertaken in the course of specialized, formal treatment relationships
65
and environments. See id. at 308–09 (emphasizing the victim’s presence
in the psychiatric unit, the “therapeutic relationship,” and the
“therapeutic environment”). The structure and language of section
709.15 and related provisions in the Iowa Code illuminate this
understanding. The section’s requirement that the conduct occur
between the counselor or therapist and a “patient or client” of the
counselor or therapist, for example, plainly implicates a professional
relationship, indicating the statute reaches only those relationships
rising to the level of a formal professional treatment relationship. See,
e.g., Iowa Code § 709.15(2)(b) (proscribing certain conduct with an
“emotionally dependent patient or client” or an “emotionally dependent
former patient or client”).
The statutory definition of “emotionally dependent” is also
instructive in my analysis, providing the emotional dependence required
for an exploitation charge must arise from the nature of a patient’s
emotional condition or “the nature of the treatment provided by the
counselor or therapist.” Id. § 709.15(1)(b) (emphasis added). We noted
in Gonzalez that a standard meaning of “treatment” is “ ‘the action or
manner of treating a patient medically or surgically.’ ” Gonzalez, 718
N.W.2d at 308 (quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
2434–35 (unabr. ed. 2002)). The incorporation of this specialized
concept in the statutory definition of emotionally dependent suggests
section 709.15 reaches a specific class of formal therapeutic
relationships—namely, those relationships where the services provided
may be characterized as constituting formal professional treatment. See
Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(b). The related civil damages provision, setting
forth the statute of limitations for damages claims brought in connection
with sexual exploitation charges, underscores that understanding, in
66
providing “action[s] . . . shall be brought within five years of the date the
victim was last treated by the counselor or therapist.” Id. § 614.1(12)
(emphasis added).
Section 709.15 very clearly bounds the categories of actors and
types of relationships that may run afoul of the statute in setting forth its
definition of “counselor or therapist.” Physicians, psychologists, nurses,
professional counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists,
and alcohol and drug counselors, I recognize, fill specialized, technical
roles in the realm of psychiatric care, and perform highly specialized
functions in providing professional mental health services for clients and
patients. The definition of “counselor or therapist” itself emphasizes as
much, incorporating the specialized elements of treatment, assessment,
and counseling we parsed in Gonzalez in identifying these professionals
as providers of mental health services. Id. § 709.15(1)(a). The
longstanding inclusion of clergy in this class should not alter this
understanding, as several sections of the Iowa Code and administrative
rules indicate clergy, in certain contexts, may provide precisely these
kinds of formal therapeutic mental health services. See, e.g., id.
§ 154D.4(1) (noting clergy may provide mental health counseling in
accordance with standards in their profession); Iowa Admin. Code
r. 481—53.15(1)(a) (noting spiritual counseling in hospice environment
shall be provided in accordance with an “interdisciplinary plan of care”).
Various provisions in the Iowa Code addressing similar subject
matter highlight the specialized nature of the services these classes of
professionals provide and the specific training they typically undergo.
See, e.g., Iowa Code § 135H.1(5) (setting forth coursework and clinical
training requirements in defining “mental health professional” for
purposes of chapter addressing psychiatric medical institutions); id.
67
§ 154D.4(1) (establishing that certain statutory licensing requirements do
not prevent “nurses, psychologists, social workers, physicians . . . or
members of the clergy, from providing or advertising that they provide
services of a marital and family therapy or mental health counseling
nature consistent with the accepted standards of their respective
professions” (emphasis added); see also id. § 135G.1(6) (defining mental
health services as “services provided by a mental health professional
operating within the scope of the professional’s practice which address
mental, emotional, medical, or behavioral problems”); Ingeborg E. Haug,
Boundaries and the Use and Misuse of Power and Authority: Ethical
Complexities for Clergy Psychotherapists, 77 J. of Counseling & Dev. 411,
411 (1999) (“Clergy psychotherapists are defined as mental health
professionals who have received dual education and training as clergy
and as psychotherapists (the term clergy encompasses Christian and
non-Christian religions).”). Similarly, numerous administrative rules
indicate these classes of actors generally receive substantial training and
typically fill specialized, technical roles in diagnosing and ameliorating
specific mental health dysfunctions. See, e.g., Iowa Admin. Code
r. 441—88.61 (defining “mental health services” as “those clinical,
rehabilitative, or supportive services provided by an individual, agency,
or other entity that is licensed, accredited, certified, or otherwise
approved as required by law to treat any mental disorder listed in the
International Classification of Diseases”); id. r. 645—31.1 (defining
“mental health setting,” for purposes of licensure of marital and family
therapists, as “a behavioral health setting where an applicant is
providing mental health services including the diagnosis, treatment, and
assessment of emotional and mental health disorders and issues”); id.
r. 645—31.5 (marital and family therapists); id. r. 645—280.5 (social
68
workers); id. r. 653—9.3 (physicians); id. r. 655—6.1 (registered and
practical nurses). The enumeration of these classes of professionals in
section 709.15, the corresponding exclusion of other categories of actors,
and the indications in section 709.15, other related sections of the Iowa
Code, and the administrative rules, of the types of services these
professionals provide highlight the formal therapeutic and diagnostic
nature of the relationships contemplated by the statute.
A survey of related statutes and jurisprudence in sister
jurisdictions augments my understanding that section 709.15 is
calculated to criminalize conduct in formal treatment relationships in
which therapeutic mental health services are provided, or in which the
defendant has purported to provide such services. A few states have
sexual exploitation statutes broader than ours, criminalizing conduct
between various enumerated actors and certain vulnerable individuals,
without requiring a formal professional therapeutic relationship. See,
e.g., Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-126(a)(1)(C) (West, Westlaw through 2014
Fiscal Sess.) (mandated reporters and clergy members); Tex. Penal Code
Ann. § 22.011(b)(10) (West, Westlaw through 2013 Third Called Sess.)
(requiring, in case of clergyperson, merely a role “as spiritual adviser”).
See generally Bradley J. B. Toben & Kris Helge, Sexual Misconduct with
Congregants or Parishioners: Crafting A Model Statute, 1 Brit. J. Am.
Legal Stud. 189, 209–10 (2012) [hereinafter Toben & Helge] (“Of [thirteen
jurisdictions with sexual exploitation statutes], only two have language
that is designed to criminalize such conduct by clergypersons outside of
the counseling context.”). Arkansas, for example, criminalizes conduct
when a person is a “mandated reporter [of child maltreatment] or a
member of the clergy and is in a position of trust or authority over the
victim and uses the position of trust or authority to engage in [proscribed
69
conduct].” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-126(a)(1)(C). The Arkansas statute
provides no further definition of “trust or authority,” contains no mental
health services requirement, contains no patient or client requirement,
and enumerates a list of relevant actors far longer and more inclusive
than the list enumerated in our own statute. Compare id. § 5-14-126(a),
with Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(a); see also H.F. 682, 78th G.A., Reg. Sess.
(Iowa 1999) (proposing an “exploitation by a person in authority” statute
which would have applied, had it been adopted, to relationships with
certain school-aged juveniles).
Other states, by contrast, have more narrowly drawn exploitation
statutes, more closely resembling our own. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat.
Ann. § 53a-65(9) (West, Westlaw through 2014 Feb. Reg. Sess.)
(enumerating in its definition of “psychotherapist” traditional classes of
mental health providers and adding hypnotists); N.D. Cent. Code Ann.
§ 12.1-20-06.1(2) (West, Westlaw through 2013 Reg. Sess.) (defining
“therapist” to mean “a physician, psychologist, psychiatrist, social
worker, nurse, chemical dependency counselor, member of the clergy, or
other person, whether licensed or not by the state, who performs or
purports to perform psychotherapy”); S.D. Codified Laws § 22-22-27(3)
(West, Westlaw through 2014 Reg. Sess.) (defining “psychotherapist” to
include various traditional classes of mental health professionals, and
including clergymembers, marriage and family therapists, and other
“mental health services provider[s]”); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-406(12)
(West, Westlaw through 2014 Gen. Sess.) (enumerating specific classes of
professional providers and requiring act “committed under the guise of
providing professional diagnosis”); Wis. Stat. Ann. § 940.22; see also id.
§ 455.01(6) (West, Westlaw through 2013 Wis. Act. 380) (defining
“psychotherapy” to include specific methods and functions performed in
70
“professional relationship”). By enumerating certain professional classes
of actors, including clergy, while defining mental health services or its
analog, psychotherapy, in terms of the technical therapeutic function
being performed, these statutes underscore the technical nature of the
relationships they cover.
Of course, as the majority points out, the definition of “counselor
or therapist” in section 709.15 does not require state licensure or
registration, and makes reference to “any” individuals who provide or
purport to provide mental health services. Those indications, however,
should not alter the foregoing analysis. In both Gonzalez and Allen, we
very clearly considered individuals operating in occupational classes not
explicitly identified in the definition of “counselor or therapist,” and yet
we examined the nature of the relationship and the nature of the
environment in each scenario to ensure the interaction rose to the level
of a formal therapeutic relationship. See Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at 308;
Allen, 565 N.W.2d at 337. As explained, section 709.15 limits its
coverage in using and defining the term “counselor or therapist”—the
statute very clearly does not use or define the term “any person,” or “any
person who provides mental health services,” or “any person in a position
of power or authority.” Moreover, the definition of counselor or therapist
has not been set forth so generally as to cover merely “any person who
provides mental health services,” as our general assembly has clearly
identified instructive classes of actors before including the less specific
“any other person” language. As we have explained on numerous
occasions, the “any other person” language must be read in the context
of the language surrounding it. See, e.g., Sorg v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue,
269 N.W.2d 129, 132 (Iowa 1978) (“Under the applicable rule of Noscitur
a sociis, the meaning of a word in a statute is ascertained in light of the
71
meaning of words with which it is associated.”). In this case, the
language preceding “any other person” indicates specific classes of actors
who engage in professional therapeutic relationships. Any faithful
reading of the remaining language in the definition must incorporate the
same lexical cues and constraints—much like we incorporated them in
our analyses in Allen and Gonzalez.
At least one court, analyzing the reach of its specialized
relationship requirement, has concluded its statute can only be read to
cover relationships “closely associated with the traditional profession of
therapeutic psychology,” and relationships in which professionals employ
“therapeutic techniques” in performing or purporting to perform
“psychotherapy.” State v. Ambrose, 540 N.W.2d 208, 212 (Wis. Ct. App.
1995). The court in Ambrose considered a case involving a high school
teacher who was pursuing a master’s degree in psychology. Id. at 210.
A student had approached him and asked for help with her depression
and related family problems. Id. He began meeting with her a few times
a week, and at these meetings she “told him about her feelings, family
problems, depression and thoughts of suicide.” Id. The relationship
lasted several months, was briefly interrupted by summer vacation, and
eventually escalated into a sexual relationship. Id. at 210–11. The
teacher was charged and convicted under Wisconsin’s sexual exploitation
statute, which prohibits sexual contact between “[a]ny person who is or
who holds himself or herself out to be a therapist and who intentionally
has sexual contact with a patient or client during any ongoing therapist–
patient or therapist–client relationship.” Id. at 209 n.1; see also Wis.
Stat. Ann. § 940.22(2).
The Ambrose court found several factors persuasive in concluding
its statute could not reach the teacher’s conduct. First, the court noted
72
a professionalism requirement in its statutory definition of
psychotherapy, which required “ ‘the use of learning, conditioning
methods and emotional reactions’ ” “ ‘to assist persons to modify feelings,
attitudes, and behaviors.’ ” Id. at 209 n.1, 212 (quoting Wis. Stat. Ann.
§ 455.01(6)). Second, the court highlighted the statute’s enumeration of
the relevant categories of actors, which read as follows: “ ‘physician,
psychologist, social worker, marriage and family therapist, professional
counselor, nurse, chemical dependency counselor, member of the
clergy.’ ” Id. (quoting Wis. Stat. Ann. § 940.22(1)(i)). Those professionals,
the court explained, “are closely associated with the traditional
profession of therapeutic psychology,” indicating the statute’s coverage of
relationships accomplishing the specialized “purpose of the profession” of
psychotherapy. Id. at 212. Third, the court noted there was no evidence
psychotherapy was typically a “part of the training, education or
expertise” for teachers. Id. Fourth, the court observed that an individual
“who conducts informal counseling, even one with a degree in
psychology, is not engaged as a professional therapist.” Finally, the
court explained, the teacher had never held himself out as a therapist
publicly or privately; he, much like most other teachers, was not trained
or experienced in the field of psychotherapy; and he was neither
employed nor compensated for the performance of psychotherapy
services. Id. For those reasons, the court concluded, the evidence failed
to establish the “counseling” performed by the teacher had reached the
level of professional psychotherapy, and the court therefore reversed his
convictions. Id.
The Ambrose court’s analysis of Wisconsin’s narrowly drawn
statute squares convincingly with my understanding of our own narrowly
drawn statute. Various cues in section 709.15, including the limited
73
enumeration of specific classes of professionals, the patient or client
requirement, the incorporation of specific terms in the definition of
mental health services implicating specialized, formal forms of therapy,
and the numerous other statutory cues implicating technical,
professional forms of therapy indicate our statute reaches only formal
professional therapeutic relationships. If we conclude otherwise—if we,
for instance, conclude our statute covers less formal relationships,
regardless whether they might be characterized as involving “counseling”
or other forms of mental health services, as the majority appears to
suggest—we must confront constitutional problems of overbreadth and
vagueness, and might, in cases involving clergy members, encounter
entanglement and other constitutional issues. 11 See, e.g., Allen, 565
11After adopting its sweeping interpretation in lieu of the narrower one I favor,
however, the majority attempts to sidestep these issues by asserting several times,
inaccurately in my view, that Edouard has failed to raise overbreadth and vagueness
arguments on appeal. I believe a few observations are warranted here.
In the jury instruction colloquy in the district court, Edouard argued “[t]he scope
of mental health services and the scope of the statute is overbroad, in that it covers
protected activities” and “the definition and scope of mental health services is
unconstitutionally vague.” In both his pretrial motion to dismiss and his posttrial
motion for arrest of judgment, he argued the Federal Constitution and the Iowa
Constitution provide protection against legislative acts that interfere “with certain
fundamental rights and liberty interests.” On appeal, Edouard advances several
specific overbreadth arguments. For example, he argues that under the State’s
proffered definition of mental health services, “every person would have a mental health
dysfunction.” Relatedly, he argues “[t]he constitutional flaw in the statute as applied in
the State’s theory of prosecution is that it presumes an unequal power balance merely
from Edouard’s status as a member of the clergy.” In addition, Edouard cites very
prominently in his constitutional analysis Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164, 93 S. Ct.
705, 732, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147, 183 (1973). By most accounts, Roe was an overbreadth
case, as the majority explained the Texas statute at issue “swe[pt] too broadly,” and
made “no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those
performed later.” Id. at 164, 93 S. Ct. at 732, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 183; see also Ada v.
Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 506 U.S. 1011, 1011, 113 S. Ct. 633,
634, 121 L. Ed. 2d 564, 565 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (explaining the Roe court
“seemingly employed an ‘overbreadth’ approach”). These features, among others, of
Edouard’s appeal are indisputably overbreadth arguments in my view.
Similarly, Edouard’s vagueness arguments abound on appeal. “If [the Gonzalez
definition] does not apply, as the State suggests,” Edouard argues, “then what definition
74
N.W.2d at 337 (explaining statute may be unconstitutional if it reaches
“substantial amount of protected conduct” (internal quotation marks
__________________________
of ‘counseling’ should apply here?” Relatedly, he cites Knight v. Iowa District Court, 269
N.W.2d 430, 433 (Iowa 1978), for the proposition that “criminal acts that are malum
prohibitum must be delineated clearly and unequivocally.” And, as noted, he cites Roe,
where the Court clearly explained it would not address a vagueness challenge only
because the overbreadth grounds were dispositive. Roe, 410 U.S. at 164, 93 S. Ct. at
732, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 183. Given these features of Edouard’s appeal and others, I do not
believe we can seriously conclude Edouard has failed to advance a vagueness challenge
here.
Finally, I would note I do not believe we can appropriately “compartmentalize”
Edouard’s vagueness and overbreadth challenges for purposes of analysis here, as we
have done many times without explanation in the past. See Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S.
566, 577 n.20, 94 S. Ct. 1242, 1249 n.20, 39 L. Ed. 2d 605, 614 n.20 (1974)
(“Appellant is correct in asserting that Goguen failed to compartmentalize in his state
court brief the due process doctrine of vagueness and First Amendment concepts of
overbreadth. . . . But permitting a degree of leakage between those particular adjoining
compartments is understandable.”). As numerous authorities have recognized, the
purpose of the special vagueness variant applicable in First Amendment cases and
other cases involving fundamental rights parallels that of both the “ordinary” vagueness
doctrine and the “ordinary” overbreadth doctrine: Each is designed “to avoid the chilling
of constitutionally protected expression and to reduce the possibility that an open-
ended delegation of authority may lead to selective enforcement against unpopular
causes.” Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 Yale L.J. 853, 904
(1991) [hereinafter Fallon] (footnotes omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see
also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358 n.8, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 1859 n.8, 75 L. Ed.
2d 903, 910 n.8 (1983) (“[W]e have traditionally viewed vagueness and overbreadth as
logically related and similar doctrines.”); Goguen, 415 U.S. at 573, 94 S. Ct. at 1247, 39
L. Ed. 2d at 612 (“Where a statute’s literal scope, unaided by a narrowing state court
interpretation, is capable of reaching expression sheltered by the First Amendment, the
[vagueness] doctrine demands a greater degree of specificity than in other contexts.”); cf.
Michael C. Dorf, Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 Stan. L. Rev. 235,
276 (1993) (“In fact, the Court has been applying overbreadth analysis in substantive
due process cases for quite some time, albeit without expressly stating as much.”).
Thus, it may well be that in a case like this one, Edouard’s vagueness challenge is “best
conceptualized as a subpart of First Amendment overbreadth doctrine.” See Fallon, 100
Yale L.J. at 904. Regardless the conceptualization, however, I believe Edouard, in
addressing the broad interpretation the majority adopts with specific vagueness and
overbreadth arguments, has asserted his “right not to be burdened by an
unconstitutional rule of law.” Henry Paul Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 Sup. Ct. Rev.
1, 4 (1981) (“[A]n overbreadth litigant [does not] invoke the rights of third parties; as ‘a
theoretical matter the [overbreadth] claimant is asserting his own right not to be
burdened by an unconstitutional rule of law, though naturally the claim is not one
which depends on the privileged character of his own conduct.”); see also William A.
Fletcher, The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 244 (1988) (“[Someone who makes
an overbreadth challenge to a statute] is not directly asserting [an]other person’s rights
to engage in protected conduct; rather, she is asserting her right to be free from control
by an invalid statute.”); Marc E. Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges
and the Valid Rule Requirement, 48 Am. U. L. Rev. 359, 367 (1998) (“Thus, the
overbreadth challenger might claim that he or she is asserting a personal right to be
free from prosecution because an overbroad law that permits some unconstitutional
applications cannot be enforced against anyone.”).
75
omitted)); State v. Bussman, 741 N.W.2d 79, 91–92 (Minn. 2007)
(concluding sexual exploitation statute was unconstitutional as applied
to clergy member, and noting it might reach any relationship in which
clergy member and congregant had sexual contact “if the two were also,
as would seem likely, discussing spiritual or religious matters on an
ongoing basis”); cf. Carter v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 857 F.2d 448, 457
(8th Cir. 1988) (“[T]he record established that Chaplain Rogers also
provides a significant amount of purely secular counseling to the
employees. She testified that her exchanges with staff members
primarily involved assisting the employees with personal problems, such
as letting off steam about supervisors, dealing with gossip and teen-age
children, and venting grief over loss of a family member. Chaplain
Rogers viewed her service as giving support and encouragement, and she
stated that it was relatively rare for these interactions to assume a
religious nature.”).
As we have explained on numerous occasions, our doctrine of
constitutional avoidance compels us to avoid constitutionally
impermissible constructions of statutes where possible. See, e.g., State
v. Dist. Ct., 843 N.W.2d 76, 85 (Iowa 2014). My understanding of section
709.15 and its coverage of formal professional therapeutic relationships
avoids implication of the issues recognized in Allen and Bussman, and is
consistent with our general preference for steering clear of
constitutionally problematic constructions. See, e.g., Toben & Helge, 1
Brit. J. Am. Legal Stud. at 215 (“Numerous state legislatures such as
[those in] Kansas and Texas have recently proposed or passed bills into
law to attenuate this sexual misconduct problem, however, most of these
bills passed into law include language that requires a court to interpret
church policy or doctrine. Consequently, these laws have either
76
encountered or potentially could meet constitutional entanglement
issues.”); see also Robert J. Basil, Note, Clergy Malpractice: Taking
Spiritual Counseling Conflicts Beyond Intentional Tort Analysis, 19
Rutgers L.J. 419, 444–45 n.96 (1988) (“Analogy to medical malpractice is
appropriate . . . when the standard addresses a procedural duty which is
based on a duty of professionalism, rather than religious beliefs.”).
I would therefore take this occasion to reiterate our longstanding
recognition that section 709.15 has been narrowly drawn to reach only
formal therapeutic relationships. See Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at 308
(concluding establishment of “therapeutic relationship[]” with psychiatric
patient could constitute treatment for purposes of section 709.15); Allen,
565 N.W.2d at 337 (explaining statute does not reach relationships
“involving the informal exchange of advice[]”). Further, I would
emphasize the statute has set forth several specific requirements to
ensure an interaction rises to the level of covered formal professional
relationship including, but not limited to: the actor must fit comfortably
within the classes of professionals enumerated in the definition of
“counselor or therapist”; the emotional dependence must arise from a
specific kind of emotional condition or from a specific course of treatment
provided by the counselor or therapist; the alleged victim must be or
have been a “patient or client” of the counselor or therapist; and the
treatment provided by the actor must be consistent with and rise to the
level of the specific diagnostic and therapeutic services contemplated by
the terms incorporated in the statutory definition of “mental health
services.” See Iowa Code § 709.15; see also Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at
308. Edouard’s entire defense was based on the propositions that (1) he
and the State’s complaining witnesses did not have a formal treatment
relationship of the type covered by the statute, and (2) he did not provide,
77
or purport to provide, mental health services to clients or patients. With
these principles, requirements, and contentions in mind, I turn to
Edouard’s challenges regarding the marshaling instructions and the
district court’s ruling on the proffered expert testimony.
A. Marshaling Instructions. Under Iowa law, the trial court
must provide the jury with instructions setting forth the law applicable to
all material issues in a case. State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 837 (Iowa
2010). In addition, the court must give a requested instruction when it
states a correct rule of law applicable to the facts of the case and the
concept is not otherwise conveyed in other instructions. Id. We have not
required the trial court give any particular form of instruction; instead,
we have explained the court must give instructions fairly stating the law
as it applies to the facts of the case before it. Id. at 838.
Here, the district court instructed the jury as follows:
The State must prove each of the following elements of
Sexual Exploitation by a Counselor or Therapist as to
[alleged victim]:
1. On or about January, 2006, through 2008, the defendant
engaged in sexual conduct with [alleged victim].
2. The defendant did so with the specific intent to arouse or
satisfy the sexual desires of either the defendant or [alleged
victim].
3. The defendant was then a counselor or therapist.
4. [Alleged victim] was then receiving mental health services
from the defendant, or had received mental health services
from the defendant within one year prior to the conduct.
The court added an instruction defining “counselor or therapist” as
including “a member of the clergy, or any other person, whether or not
licensed or registered by the State, who provides or purports to provide
78
mental health services.” The court also provided the following definition
for “mental health services”:
the providing of treatment, assessment, or counseling to
another person for a cognitive, behavioral, emotional, mental
or social dysfunction, including an intrapersonal or
interpersonal dysfunction. It does not include strictly
personal relationships involving the informal exchange of
advice, nor does it include the giving of general spiritual
advice or guidance from a clergy member to congregants. It
contemplates a counseling relationship with the clergy
member established for the purpose of addressing particular
mental, intrapersonal or interpersonal dysfunctions.
Edouard objected to these instructions on the grounds they failed to
convey the patient or client requirement set forth in the statute, failed to
convey the scientific definitions of the specific terms incorporated in the
statutory definition of “mental health services” we relied on in Gonzalez,
and failed to convey the statute’s enumeration of specific professional
classes of actors in defining “counselor or therapist.” He proposed a
modified set of instructions incorporating each of these elements, but the
court declined to adopt them. On appeal, Edouard reiterates his
contentions and argues the district court abused its discretion in
declining to give his proposed instructions.
Based on my review of the explicit statutory requirements and the
principles articulated in our caselaw, I conclude Edouard’s contentions
have merit. The “patient or client” requirement, for example, was very
plainly applicable to Edouard’s defense and his proposed instruction
accurately stated the relevant law. The requirement is set forth both in
the statute itself and in the relevant pattern criminal jury instructions.
See Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(e); Iowa State Bar Ass’n, Iowa Crim. Jury
Instruction 920.3 (2013). While the district court’s instructions
incorporated a requirement that the alleged victims had received mental
health services from Edouard, consistent with the statutory definition of
79
patient or client, they failed to include the important statutory “patient or
client” language itself. As I have explained above, this language is
crucial to understanding section 709.15, as it explicitly emphasizes the
formal professional therapeutic relationship contemplated by the statute.
It was the State’s burden to prove more than the fact that Edouard met
and spoke with the four women about intensely personal matters. The
meetings and conversation must have been in the context of a formal
professional therapeutic relationship in which the women became
Edouard’s patients or clients—not merely members of his congregation.
Lacking specific language capturing the basic statutory requirement of a
formal therapeutic relationship, I believe the jury instructions as given
allowed for an unduly broad understanding of the statute, risking the
possibility the jury might have concluded the statute reached conduct
even in the absence of the required specialized relationship. See, e.g.,
Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 452–54, 109 S. Ct.
2558, 2566–67, 105 L. Ed. 2d 377, 390–92 (1989) (explaining reliance on
statutory definition was “not entirely satisfactory” and looking for “other
evidence of congressional intent to lend the term its proper scope”);
Darryl K. Brown, Regulating Decision Effects of Legally Sufficient Jury
Instructions, 73 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1105, 1113 (2000) (noting two or more
“formally equivalent” descriptions of statutory element often lead
“decisionmakers to different choices” because “one presentation triggers
inferences and assumptions that change its effective meaning”); Peter
Tiersma, The Rocky Road to Legal Reform: Improving the Language of Jury
Instructions, 66 Brook. L. Rev. 1081, 1102–03 (2001) (noting model
instruction committee will often recommend use of both statutory term
and more ordinary meaning because jurors may be as familiar with
statutory term and because ordinary meaning may not be “close enough
80
in meaning”); cf. United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 969–70, 108
S. Ct. 2751, 2774, 101 L. Ed. 2d 788, 822 (1988) (Stevens, J.,
concurring) (“In my view, individuals attempting to conform their conduct
to the rule of law, prosecutors, and jurors are just as capable of
understanding and applying the term ‘involuntary servitude’ as they are
of applying the concept of ‘slavelike condition.’ Moreover, to the extent
‘slavelike condition of servitude’ means something less than ‘involuntary
servitude,’ I see no basis for reading the statute more narrowly than
written.”).
Similarly, Edouard’s request for an enumeration of the specific
categories of mental health professions in the statutory definition of
“counselor or therapist” duplicated the applicable statutory language,
and would have provided important context for understanding the types
of relationships covered by section 709.15. The statutory definition does
not merely implicate clergy and any other person who might purport to
provide mental health services, as the definitions offered by the district
court and majority suggest. Instead, the definition sets forth an
illuminating list of specific categories of professionals who provide mental
health services, while excluding other classes of actors who might also
engage in relationships with emotional or related underpinnings. This
definition, as I have explained, is crucial context for an appropriate
understanding of section 709.15. Section 709.15 covers not just any
relationship involving an enumerated professional and having some
mental health component, but only those relationships in which the
provider and an emotionally dependent client or patient (or former client
or patient) have engaged in a formal therapeutic mental health
relationship. The statute’s itemization of the professionals who
commonly provide mental health services emphasizes the importance of
81
the existence of a formal therapeutic relationship as a key feature of the
state’s burden of proof and Edouard’s defense. In my view, the district
court’s omission from the instructions of Eduoard’s request for the
statutory itemization of professionals providing such professional
services left the jury with an unduly broad understanding of the statute’s
circumscribed reach. See, e.g., Sorg, 269 N.W.2d at 132 (“Under the
applicable rule of Noscitur a sociis, the meaning of a word in a statute is
ascertained in light of the meaning of words with which it is
associated.”); State v. Roggenkamp, 106 P.3d 196, 200 (Wash. 2005)
(explaining “shelter” in the phrase “food, water, shelter, clothing, and
medically necessary health care . . . should not be isolated and analyzed
apart from the words surrounding it”); see also United States v.
Zimmerman, 943 F.2d 1204, 1213 (10th Cir. 1991) (requiring
instructions to “state the law which governs” and provide “the jury with
an ample understanding of the issues and standards applicable”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); Robert W. Rieber & William A.
Stewart, The Interactions of the Language Sciences and the Law, 606
Annals N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1, 2 (1990) (“In more than one instance,
linguistics and the law have independently discovered the same
principles of language. For example, the legal canon of construction
noscitur a sociis (indicating that the meaning of words is to be known
from the other words with which they are associated) is, in essence, the
semanticist’s principle of contextual constraints on lexical meaning.”).
Finally, Edouard’s request for specific definitions of “counseling,”
“treatment,” and “assessment” duplicated the definitions we set forth in
Gonzalez, and was clearly applicable to his defense. The definitions
would have provided additional important context for the jury, conveying
the technical nature of these terms and their close association with
82
professional diagnosis and treatment of emotional and cognitive
dysfunctions affecting clients or patients. While the Gonzalez definitions
need not constitute exhaustive definitions for purposes of section 709.15
analysis, they do accurately convey the general statutory meaning, and
they do clearly bound the universe of acceptable interpretations of
mental health services in implicating only specific classes of formal
therapeutic relationships. See Gonzalez, 718 N.W.2d at 308–09
(emphasizing therapeutic relationship, therapeutic environment, and
formal psychiatric environment). The omission of these definitions or
any related indication of the technical meaning of mental health services
in the jury instructions given by the district court again raises the risk of
an unduly broad understanding of the statute.
Because the jury instructions failed to convey these important legal
limiting principles, I would conclude the district court erred in refusing
to submit Edouard’s proposed instructions. See Marin, 788 N.W.2d at
837. Instructional errors of this kind, we have previously explained,
warrant reversal unless the record demonstrates an absence of prejudice.
State v. Frei, 831 N.W.2d 70, 73 (Iowa 2013). For errors of
nonconstitutional magnitude, we have noted prejudice is established
when it appears the rights of the complaining party have been injuriously
affected, or it appears the party has suffered a miscarriage of justice. Id.
The omission of the requested instructions here failed to ensure the jury
would apply each of the distinct statutory elements substantiating a
formal professional therapeutic relationship in evaluating Edouard’s
defense he had never engaged in a relationship of the kind contemplated
by the statute. A failure of that nature, we have often said, will establish
prejudice. See, e.g., State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514, 518 (Iowa 1996)
(reversing conviction of domestic abuse assault where jury instruction
83
failed to explicitly enumerate all relevant indicia of cohabitation).
Analyzing the instructional error here in conjunction with the evidentiary
error I discuss next, I conclude the record conclusively establishes
prejudice.
B. Expert Testimony. Turning to the first of Edouard’s
evidentiary challenges, I note the district court limited Dr. Wakefield’s
proposed expert testimony regarding the differences between pastoral
care and pastoral counseling, on the ground it would be unhelpful to the
jury and would usurp the “function of the jury.” At the outset, I note we
have often emphasized our commitment to a liberal view on the
admissibility of expert testimony. Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
590 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Iowa 1999). For purposes of determining the
admissibility of expert evidence, we have recently explained, it is of no
moment that testimony addresses “ ‘an ultimate issue to be decided by
the trier of fact.’ ” See In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 419 (Iowa
2005) (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.704). Instead, we noted, our evidence
rules compel us to consider whether the evidence meets our other
longstanding evidentiary requirements. Id. The problem with a specific
subset of expert testimony offered in a form embracing a legal
conclusion, we emphasized, is “not that the opinion” may usurp the
function “of the jury,” but rather that it may conflict with the
responsibility of the court to determine applicable law and to instruct the
jury accordingly. Id. To determine whether that conflict exists, we
explained, we must look to standard evidentiary inquiries: the question
of whether the evidence is helpful to the fact finder, the likelihood of
misunderstanding by the fact finder of the legal terms used, and the
question of whether the factual basis for any legal terms used has been
adequately developed. Id. at 419–20.
84
Focusing attention on the appropriate inquiries, I note we have
often looked for guidance to the approaches other jurisdictions have
taken in analyzing their own closely related rules of evidence. See id.
(noting Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.704 is “identical to its federal
counterpart,” and analyzing federal caselaw and standard evidence
treatises). Several authorities have set forth principles applicable to our
helpfulness analysis here. Courts have explained, for example, that
expert testimony is generally helpful where it relates to subject matter
outside the common experience of the jury. See, e.g., Fed. Crop Ins.
Corp. v. Hester, 765 F.2d 723, 728 (8th Cir. 1985) (noting admissibility of
expert testimony regarding farm production on this basis); United States
v. Johnson, 735 F.2d 1200, 1202 (9th Cir. 1984) (“The federal courts
uniformly hold . . . that government agents or similar persons may testify
as to the general practices of criminals to establish the defendant’s
modus operandi. Such evidence helps the jury to understand complex
criminal activities, and alerts it to the possibility that combinations of
seemingly innocuous events may indicate criminal behavior.”). Expert
testimony regarding business practices and customs unfamiliar to the
general public has therefore often been deemed admissible. See, e.g.,
United States v. McIver, 470 F.3d 550, 560–62 (4th Cir. 2006) (concluding
expert testimony that physician treated patients outside course of
legitimate medical practice was admissible); United States v. Perkins, 470
F.3d 150, 159–60 (4th Cir. 2006) (permitting testimony regarding
reasonableness of use of force, explaining touchstone was whether
testimony was helpful to jury, and noting questioning focused on
witness’s “personal” assessment of defendant’s use of force); Berckeley
Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 218–19 (3d Cir. 2006) (explaining
testimony regarding securities industry practice and custom was
85
admissible and probative of buyer’s state of mind at time of agreement);
United States v. Mohr, 318 F.3d 613, 624–25 (4th Cir. 2003) (explaining
expert testimony that use of police dog “violated ‘prevailing police
practices’ ” did not impermissibly tell jury “ ‘what decision to reach’ ”);
TCBY Sys., Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925, 929 (8th Cir. 1994) (permitting
testimony in action for breach of franchise agreement that franchisor’s
site-review-and-evaluation process failed to meet minimum custom and
practice observed by franchisors in fast food franchise industry); State v.
LaCount, 750 N.W.2d 780, 787–88 (Wis. 2008) (permitting testimony
regarding the basic factual characteristics of an investment contract to
assist the jury in determining whether a transaction involved a security).
In my view, Dr. Wakefield’s testimony was of a type that would
have been helpful to the jury on multiple levels. First, as Edouard was a
pastor rather than a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker,
Dr. Wakefield would have provided important context for the jury.
Unlike the other typical providers of mental health services, pastors
spend much of their time providing pastoral care that falls outside the
statutory definition of mental health services. Edouard’s defense turned
on the jury understanding that pastors interact with their parishioners
in countless ways that—although often very supportive and beneficial—
do not constitute “mental health services” as contemplated in section
709.15. The district court’s ruling denied the jury this helpful
information that was essential to Edouard’s theory of defense, and
outside the jury’s common understanding.
Even where proposed testimony falls generally within the common
understanding of the jury, authorities have typically agreed testimony
may be helpful when it offers specialized knowledge. See, e.g., Kopf v.
Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1993) (“The subject matter of Rule
86
702 testimony need not be arcane or even especially difficult to
comprehend. If, again in the disjunctive, the proposed testimony will
recount or employ ‘scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,’ it
is a proper subject.”); 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 1923, at 31–32
(Chadbourn rev. 1978) (“The true test of the admissibility of such
testimony is not whether the subject matter is common or uncommon, or
whether many persons or few have some knowledge of the matter, but it
is whether the witnesses offered as experts have any peculiar knowledge
or experience, not common to the world, which renders their opinions
founded on such knowledge or experience any aid to the Court or jury in
determining the questions at issue.”). Likewise, where the fact finder
may have some knowledge of particular subject matter, but the
knowledge may be incomplete or inaccurate, courts have recognized
expert testimony may be helpful. See, e.g., United States v. Amuso, 21
F.3d 1251, 1264 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Despite the prevalence of organized
crime stories in the news and popular media, [crime family structure and
terminology] remain proper subjects for expert testimony.”). In this case,
Dr. Wakefield’s knowledge of the important distinction between pastoral
care and mental health counseling provided by pastors was specialized
information that would have been helpful to the jury in sorting out
whether Edouard engaged, or purported to engage, in counseling as the
term is defined in section 709.15. Although jurors might be expected to
have some general knowledge about tasks commonly performed by
pastors, their knowledge of the distinction between pastoral care and
pastoral counseling that could have been illuminated by Dr. Wakefield
was likely incomplete or inaccurate. Dr. Wakefield’s testimony could
have minimized the risk jurors harbored a misunderstanding that
counseling by pastors within the circumscribed meaning of section
87
709.15 extends beyond professional therapeutic relationships with
emotionally dependent patients or clients receiving mental health
services. Just as the evidence would have assisted the jury, it would
have been very helpful to the defense in this case.
The majority perfunctorily rejects Edouard’s proffer of
Dr. Wakefield’s testimony as an effort to redefine mental health services
in a manner incompatible with the meaning of section 709.15 and opine
that Edouard didn’t provide them. I strongly disagree with this
characterization. The effort was instead calculated to communicate
specialized knowledge about mental health services provided by pastors
in formal therapeutic relationships with clients or patients. The effort
was to educate the jury that the same definition of counseling and
mental health services applicable to a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social
worker in a prosecution under section 709.15 should be applied against
Edouard as a pastor. In other words, the defense sought through
Dr. Wakefield’s testimony to guard against the distinct possibility that
the jury might misunderstand that “counseling” has a much broader
meaning in the pastoral context than in other professional contexts.
Accordingly, I believe the majority misses the mark when it asserts
Edouard’s offer of expert testimony was calculated to redefine the
statutory standard. The offer was absolutely consistent with the
statutory framework’s central limiting principles, and should have been
received.
Further, where no other evidence is available on an issue, courts
have explained expert testimony may be crucial to the fact finder’s
understanding. See, e.g., Harris v. Pac. Floor Mach. Mfg. Co., 856 F.2d
64, 67–68 (8th Cir. 1988) (noting distinction between testimony regarding
criteria by which expert would form an opinion about the adequacy of a
88
warning, which was important to fact finder’s understanding, and direct
testimony regarding adequacy of warnings, which failed to provide
similar aid). No other trial witness supplied the specialized knowledge
offered by Dr. Wakefield.
Perhaps most importantly, courts have recognized the importance
of the issue to which expert testimony relates is a significant factor in
assessing the testimony’s helpfulness. See, e.g., United States v.
Alexander, 816 F.2d 164, 167–69 (5th Cir. 1987) (explaining district
court erred in excluding evidence bearing directly on issue central to
determination of defendant’s guilt). In my view, the majority completely
misapprehends the crucial significance of this evidence to the defense.
There was no more important witness for Edouard in this case than
Dr. Wakefield, who offered specialized knowledge illuminating what
mental health counseling looks like when it is provided by a pastor to
parishioners who are his clients or patients.
Courts have also articulated useful principles for analyzing the
likelihood of jury confusion and the question of whether adequate factual
basis for any testimony has been developed. As we explained in Palmer,
we are most frequently concerned with opinions implicating legal
standards and terminology when the fact finder may not understand the
legal definitions of the terms and standards used. Palmer, 691 N.W.2d at
419. Various courts have elaborated on this concern, noting where
testimony fails to explain how tests and terms with legal meaning relate
to the facts in the case, the fact finder may not understand the testimony
or may attribute a meaning unintended by the witness. See, e.g., United
States v. Simpson, 7 F.3d 186, 188–89 (10th Cir. 1993) (“When an expert
merely states an opinion on an ultimate issue without adequately
exploring the criteria upon which the opinion is based, the jury is
89
provided with no independent means by which it can reach its own
conclusion or give proper weight to the expert testimony.”). Thus, courts
have explained, experts may often avoid the problem of confusion by
employing language that does not have unrelated meaning under the law
applicable to the case. See, e.g., United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97,
103 (2d Cir. 1994) (permitting testimony about defendant’s submission of
false tax returns, where witness did not rely specifically on terms derived
directly from statutory language but, instead, used terms laypersons
could understand). Dr. Wakefield’s testimony was, as I have suggested
above, clearly calculated to eliminate jurors’ confusion surrounding the
nature and extent of mental health services provided by pastors.
Similarly, experts have avoided problems of confusion by using
language with a meaning accessible to laypeople, by using language
having the same lay meaning as the legal meaning, or by clearly
signifying the use of a specific meaning when the lay and legal meanings
differ. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 918 F.2d 895, 905 (11th Cir.
1990) (“Considered in context, the police detective’s use of the term
‘conspiracy’ was a factual—not a legal—conclusion and did not track
unduly the definition of the offense in [the relevant statute].”); United
States v. Kelly, 679 F.2d 135, 136 (8th Cir. 1982) (permitting narcotics
officer’s testimony that quantity of cocaine found on defendant at time of
arrest was “a quantity that would be possessed with intent to
distribute”); Maury R. Olicker, Comment, The Admissibility of Expert
Witness Testimony: Time to Take the Final Leap?, 42 U. Miami L. Rev.
831, 872 (1988) (“There is yet another group of cases [admitting opinion
testimony] in which the court found that, although the witness reached a
conclusion using a term of law, his statement must properly be
understood in another context, completely disregarding the legal
90
meaning. This is not quite the same as saying that the jury will not be
confused because it will automatically tend to attach the correct meaning
to the term. Instead, the court is saying that because of the broader
context of the witness’s testimony, the jury will understand that he did
not mean the word in a legal sense but in some other sense.”). Dr.
Wakefield’s testimony on the important distinction between pastoral care
and pastoral counseling would not, in my view, have increased the risk of
jury confusion. On the contrary, her explication of the context in which
pastors—like other mental health professionals—provide mental health
services to emotionally dependent patients or clients in a formal
therapeutic environment was expressed in words entirely consistent with
the carefully circumscribed meaning of the essential terms within section
709.15.
Finally, various courts have explained the distinction between
admissible factual opinion and impermissible legal conclusion may often
be difficult to perceive based on the overlap of the terms used. In these
cases, cognizant of the potential for confusion, courts have nevertheless
often allowed the proposed testimony, explaining “[m]edical and legal
terms often overlap, and a medical expert cannot be expected to use
different words merely to avoid this specific problem.” See, e.g., United
States v. Two Eagle, 318 F.3d 785, 793 (8th Cir. 2003); Hagen Ins. Inc. v.
Roller, 139 P.3d 1216, 1222–23 (Alaska 2006). Fairness and efficiency
concerns will often dictate admissibility, courts have explained, as long
as the testimony is confined to relevant issues, is based on proper legal
concepts, and meets the other requirements of the rules of evidence.
See, e.g., First Nat’l State Bank of N.J. v. Reliance Elec. Co., 668 F.2d 725,
731 (3d Cir. 1981) (permitting testimony regarding trade usage of terms
having legal meaning, to inform jury of bank customs and to assist it in
91
determining whether plaintiff bank was entitled to claim benefits of
holder in due course); Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem’l Hosp., 747 S.W.2d
361, 365 (Tex. 1987).
In summary, I conclude Dr. Wakefield’s proposed testimony about
the differences between pastoral care and pastoral counseling addressed
subject matter not commonly known to the jury, contained specialized
knowledge of the range and types of tasks typically performed in each
pastoral role, and constituted the only means by which the jury could
have gathered this information of central importance to the defense.
Those factors, the courts have explained, are indicative of helpfulness,
and weigh heavily in favor of admissibility. See, e.g., Kopf, 993 F.2d at
377; 7 Wigmore on Evidence § 1923, at 31–32. Moreover, Dr. Wakefield’s
testimony was central to Edouard’s defense. Her testimony was offered
to explain the types of tasks Edouard might typically be expected to
perform in his role as a pastoral caregiver, distinguishing those tasks
from the types of tasks he might be expected to perform in a role as
pastoral counselor. In furtherance of this distinction, Dr. Wakefield’s
proposed testimony would have supported an inference that the tasks in
the latter role would closely track the types of services provided by other
mental health services professionals under section 709.15. This factual
background was directly relevant to the jury’s evaluation of Edouard’s
defense that, although his conduct could be viewed as pastoral care, he
did not provide mental health services as contemplated by the statute.
Exclusion of crucial background information of this kind, courts have
explained, may often constitute reversible error. See, e.g., Alexander,
816 F.2d at 169 (“The entire case against Victor Alexander turned on the
photographic identification, and it was clearly erroneous for the district
court to exclude without good reason relevant expert testimony bearing
92
directly on that issue.”); State v. Eichman, 456 N.W.2d 143, 150 (Wis.
1990) (concluding sexual exploitation case was “particularly appropriate
for the admission of expert testimony” explaining certain specific
practices of psychotherapy and the defendant’s typical responsibilities,
on the ground the factual background regarding these practices and
responsibilities would not typically be “within the understanding of the
ordinary person”).
Furthermore, I note the distinction between pastoral care and
pastoral counseling detailed in Dr. Wakefield’s proposed testimony
presented minimal risk the jury would inappropriately confuse the terms
and standards she proposed to use with those provided in section
709.15. The statute makes no reference, in any provision, to pastoral
care or pastoral counseling. In addition, her use of the word “pastoral”
to modify the word counseling helped to alleviate concern the jury might
be unable to distinguish her use of “pastoral counseling” from the
statute’s use of the word “counseling.” Her description of the role of the
pastoral counselor also worked to minimize the risk of inappropriate
confusion, given her exposition of the tasks and techniques involved, and
the fact that these tasks and techniques largely coincided with those
associated with the technical meaning of counseling incorporated in the
statute. See Palmer, 691 N.W.2d at 421 (“[T]here was an abundance of
testimony by Dr. Salter concerning the meaning of the term ‘likely.’
Under these circumstances, Dr. Salter’s use of the statutorily defined
term ‘likely’ did not render her opinion inadmissible.”); id. (explaining
danger of jury confusion may arise when expert and jury are not “ ‘on the
same page’ ” with respect to differing statutory and testimonial meaning).
Given the demonstrable helpfulness of Dr. Wakefield’s proposed
testimony, its central importance to Edouard’s defense, the minimal
93
likelihood the jury might confuse the meanings of the terms used with
unrelated lay meanings, and the extensive factual basis for the use of
those terms overlapping with the statutory terms, I conclude the district
court erred in excluding the testimony. As is the case with instructional
error, I would presume the evidentiary error was prejudicial and requires
reversal unless the record affirmatively establishes lack of prejudice.
See, e.g., State v. Paredes, 775 N.W.2d 554, 571 (Iowa 2009). For
evidentiary errors of constitutional magnitude, we may only find the
absence of prejudice if we are convinced the “error alleged was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.” See, e.g., State v. Simmons, 714 N.W.2d
264, 278 (Iowa 2006).
Regardless whether the error here rises to the level of
constitutional magnitude, I cannot conclude the record affirmatively
establishes the absence of prejudice. The evidence would have provided
helpful factual information for the jury directly related to Edouard’s
defense that he was not engaged in the kinds of formal therapeutic
relationships contemplated by the statute, and the evidence was
unavailable from any other source. The instructional error compounded
the impact of the exclusion, as the jury was left without both important
factual nuance for distinguishing certain specific classes of relationships
from others and important legal nuance for application of the relevant
statutory principles to the types of relationships considered. In effect,
the jury here was deprived of both factual principles and legal principles
acutely relevant to the defense. Those deprivations, I conclude,
conclusively establish prejudice and warrant reversal. 12
12Because I conclude my resolution of the instructional and evidentiary
challenges is dispositive of the outcome here, I will not address Edouard’s remaining
challenges on appeal.
94
I join that part of Justice Appel’s special concurrence setting forth
the analytical approach we take in addressing an issue under the Iowa
Constitution where a party also raises the issue under the corollary
provision of the Federal Constitution, but does not suggest application of
a different standard, or suggest a different application, under the Iowa
Constitution.
Wiggins, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.