State of Iowa v. Randy Scott Meyers , 2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 42 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
    No. 08–1524
    Filed June 24, 2011
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Appellee,
    vs.
    RANDY SCOTT MEYERS,
    Appellant.
    On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D.
    McKenrick, Judge.
    Defendant seeks further review of court of appeals’ decision affirming
    his conviction for sexual abuse and lascivious acts with a minor. DECISION
    OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
    Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and David A. Adams,
    Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant
    Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Julie A. Walton,
    Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
    2
    CADY, Chief Justice.
    Randy Scott Meyers seeks further review of a decision by the court of
    appeals that affirmed his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree and
    lascivious conduct with a minor. Meyers primarily challenges the sufficiency
    of the evidence to support the convictions.    On our review, we affirm the
    decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment and sentence of the
    district court.
    I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings.
    In the fall of 1993, Randy Scott Meyers met and began dating Patricia,
    a single mother of two children. Meyers was thirty years old. Patricia and
    her children lived in Davenport. The oldest child, Mindy, was six years old
    at the time.      Meyers moved in with Patricia and her two children in the
    spring of 1994. The couple had one child together later that year.
    In June 1995, Meyers was convicted of the crime of lascivious acts
    with a child after Patricia found Meyers engaging in sexual activity with
    Mindy in her bedroom. He was sentenced to five years in prison. Shortly
    after he completed serving his sentence, Meyers returned to live with Patricia
    and her children. He then married Patricia, and the couple continued to live
    together in Davenport with the children.
    Patricia suffered from bipolar disorder during the course of their
    marriage.   She threatened and attempted suicide while the children were
    present and was hospitalized.     Meyers was the “controlling figure” to the
    children. At times, Meyers physically and mentally abused Mindy, as well as
    her younger brother.       In September 2004, the Department of Human
    Services (DHS) investigated an injury inflicted on Mindy by Meyers.
    After the incident of physical abuse, the already contentious familial
    circumstances deteriorated rapidly. Meyers, Patricia, and Mindy had started
    to smoke crack cocaine together.       Meyers supplied the cocaine.    Mindy
    3
    quickly developed an addiction to the drug, which caused her to drop out of
    high school. She was seventeen years old. In late 2004, Patricia sought and
    received a protective order against Meyers that required him to move out of
    their Davenport home.           Disharmony also developed between Mindy and
    Patricia, which caused Mindy to leave the home.                  She began living with
    Meyers in his trailer outside Davenport.
    On New Year’s Eve 2004, Meyers and Mindy had a party at the trailer.
    Mindy consumed alcohol at the party.               On at least two occasions, guests
    observed Mindy and Meyers go into Meyers’ bedroom or the bathroom
    together for thirty minutes or more. On a separate occasion, Meyers was
    observed touching Mindy’s face and hair in a romantic way while telling her
    she was beautiful.
    Mindy lived with Meyers until January 2005, when Patricia sought
    and obtained a court order for her involuntary commitment for drug
    treatment.   Mindy was initially admitted to a hospital in Davenport for
    treatment.   In the spring of 2005, she was transferred to Youth Shelter
    Services, a residential treatment facility in Ames.
    After Mindy was placed at Youth Shelter Services, Meyers moved to
    Ames to be closer to her.           He was subsequently convicted of lascivious
    conduct with a minor and was sentenced to one year in jail. Mindy was the
    victim of the crime.       While in jail, Meyers sent Mindy a series of letters.
    Many of the letters professed love for Mindy and revealed she was the object
    of his sexual and romantic desires.               In one letter dated March 8, 2006,
    Meyers wrote:
    All I want is to buy you things (hold you) and make little ones
    with you. Please be mine. . . . It’s been over 60 days since I’ve
    had sex. It has been with this one beautiful blonde. 1 . . . She is
    so gorgouse [sic] so careing [sic] and everything I’ve ever wanted.
    1Evidence   at trial showed the phrase “beautiful blonde” referred to Mindy.
    4
    I love this beautiful blond! (Her p---- taste great) The best I’ve
    ever tasted. The best in bed also and she treats me like a king
    ....
    In another letter to Mindy dated March 12, 2006, Meyers wrote:       “I
    must have you soon. I must hold you soon . . . . Remember our shower. I
    love memories . . . . I’d give anything to have you again and again and again.
    You no [sic] what I mean.” Meyers also described Mindy’s physical attributes
    in a letter dated March 11, in which he stated:
    Your legs are awesome your hips are perfect your chest is more
    woman than I can handle your lips are thin and hot your face is
    perfect your toes are cool but I’ll admit I haven’t looked at them
    as much as your beautiful body but I will!
    These letters were signed “Love, Randy.”        In other letters, Meyers signed
    “Love, Dad.” In one such letter, Meyers advised Mindy to sell his truck and
    keep the money to live on and to “be a good kid.” Mindy gave the letters to
    her Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor and friend, Johnna Folkmann-Ask.
    Folkmann-Ask confronted Meyers about the letters over the phone and told
    Meyers to stop calling Mindy.
    The DHS child protection worker, who had been initially involved with
    the family in 2004, Kim Cronkleton Fish, continued working with the
    family’s case in 2005. In June 2005, Fish visited Mindy at the Ames shelter
    to follow up on a report of sexual abuse between Meyers and Mindy. Fish
    also interviewed Meyers, who admitted he and Mindy had “crossed the line”
    and that he knew it was wrong. Meyers further admitted to Fish that the
    sexual activity with Mindy he described in the letters had actually taken
    place.
    The State charged Meyers with two counts of sexual abuse in the third
    degree, one count of lascivious conduct with a minor, and one count of
    distributing a controlled substance to a minor for his conduct with Mindy
    while they resided together in Meyers’ trailer between September 2004 and
    5
    January 2005.       The State offered two alternative theories of sexual abuse
    under Iowa Code section 709.4 (2003). The first alternative alleged Meyers
    performed sex acts by force or against Mindy’s will.                    See Iowa Code
    § 709.4(1). The second alternative alleged Meyers performed sex acts at a
    time when Mindy was suffering from a mental defect or incapacity. See 
    id. § 709.4(2)(a).
       Meyers waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a
    bench trial.     Mindy did not testify at trial, and the trial court denied the
    State’s offer to admit her deposition into evidence in her absence.
    At trial, the State introduced evidence consistent with the background
    facts set forth in this opinion. Additionally, the State offered the testimony
    of an expert witness, Dr. Richard Hutchison, a board-certified clinical
    psychologist who specializes in the mental health treatment of children and
    families.      Dr. Hutchison opined that Mindy did not have the ability to
    consent to a sex act with Meyers under all the circumstances of the case.
    The State asked Dr. Hutchison a series of hypothetical questions about the
    psychological state of a girl in Mindy’s circumstances from the time she was
    sexually abused as a young child by her stepfather to when she moved in
    with her stepfather and began a romantic relationship with him involving
    sex. 2 Dr. Hutchison generally opined that a girl in Mindy’s situation would
    not be psychologically able to effectively consent to sex with her stepfather.
    He testified that Meyer’s past abuse of Mindy in their home as her father
    figure, along with Patricia’s support of Meyers following the abuse, would
    confuse a child’s boundaries and freeze the child’s emotions at the age of the
    trauma if left untreated. Dr. Hutchison also testified a child witnessing and
    2Iowa  prohibits a sexual relationship between stepparent and stepchild when the
    parents are still married. See Iowa Code § 726.2; see also Back v. Back, 
    148 Iowa 223
    , 231,
    
    125 N.W. 1009
    , 1012 (1910). An incestuous relationship, however, is not the same as sex
    without consent. State v. Jones, 
    233 Iowa 843
    , 845, 
    10 N.W.2d 526
    , 527 (1943). The State
    did not charge Meyers under section 726.2.
    6
    experiencing physical violence in the home by Meyers would fear resisting
    him.    He further testified that a chaotic household without appropriate
    decision   making      and   boundaries   would    cause   increased    confusion.
    Additionally, Dr. Hutchison testified an addiction to crack cocaine, with the
    authority figure as the supplier, would cause a physiological layer of
    dependency. The State concluded its questioning of Dr. Hutchison by asking
    him to express his expert opinion about Mindy’s ability to consent to sexual
    activity with Meyers based on the evidence presented at trial. Dr. Hutchison
    concluded the combination of all the factors in Mindy’s life would cause her
    to have a “below normal” ability to resist her stepfather and that, ultimately,
    Mindy would not have the ability to consent to sex with him.
    The district court found Meyers guilty of all charges against him. The
    court concluded there was insufficient evidence Mindy was “mentally
    incapacitated” under Iowa Code section 709.4(2)(a) at the time of the sex
    acts with Meyers. Yet, it found Meyers guilty of sexual abuse in the third
    degree under the totality of the circumstances that showed the sex acts were
    against Mindy’s will because they occurred while she was psychologically
    unable to consent to Meyers’ advances as her stepparent. See Iowa Code
    § 709.4(1).      Relying on the same facts, the court found Meyers guilty of
    lascivious conduct with a minor based on evidence that Meyers had
    “persuaded [Mindy] to disrobe for the purpose of arousing his sexual
    desires.” See 
    id. § 709.14.
    Finally, the court found the State proved Meyers
    was guilty of distributing a controlled substance to a minor under Iowa Code
    section 124.406.
    Meyers appealed from his conviction for lascivious conduct with a
    minor and sex abuse in the third degree. 3          He primarily challenged the
    3Meyers  does not appeal from his conviction for distribution of a controlled
    substance to a minor under Iowa Code section 124.406.
    7
    sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.      The thrust of the
    challenge targets the absence of testimony from Mindy that the sex acts with
    him were by force or against her will.        Meyers asserts Mindy’s consent
    cannot be negated without expert evidence that she suffered from a
    recognized mental defect. He claims the expert testimony presented by the
    State that she was psychologically unable to consent is insufficient to vitiate
    consent under the statute. We transferred the case to the court of appeals.
    A divided court affirmed the judgment and sentence of the district court. We
    granted Meyers’ request for further review.
    II. Scope of Review.
    We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial
    for correction of errors at law. State v. Hennings, 
    791 N.W.2d 828
    , 832 (Iowa
    2010). In doing so, we examine whether, taken in the light most favorable to
    the State, the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence in the
    record. 
    Id. at 832–33.
    We find evidence substantial if it would convince a
    rational fact finder the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State
    v. McCullah, 
    787 N.W.2d 90
    , 93 (Iowa 2010).            We draw all fair and
    reasonable inferences that may be deduced from the evidence in the record.
    
    Hennings, 791 N.W.2d at 832
    –33.           In assessing the sufficiency of the
    evidence, we find circumstantial evidence equally as probative as direct.
    State v. Liggins, 
    524 N.W.2d 181
    , 186 (Iowa 1994).
    III. Evidence of Sexual Abuse.
    The State alleges two separate occasions of sexual abuse between
    September 2004 and January 2005. To sustain the conviction, there must
    be sufficient evidence of every fact necessary to support each count.      See
    State v. Capper, 
    539 N.W.2d 361
    , 364 (Iowa 1995) (“In determining the
    sufficiency of the evidence we consider each count separately.”), rev’d on
    other grounds by State v. Hawk, 
    616 N.W.2d 527
    , 530 (Iowa 2000). The first
    8
    requirement for sexual abuse in the third degree is the State must provide
    sufficient evidence a sex act occurred. See Iowa Code § 709.4. To prove a
    sex act occurred, the State presented Meyers’ statements admitting to
    numerous sex acts with Mindy, along with circumstantial evidence of the
    existence of a sexual relationship.   Meyers claims there was insufficient
    corroborative evidence to support his references to sex acts with Mindy.
    A. Sufficient Evidence of Sex Act. Our law on the admissibility of
    confessions has been substantively unchanged since its inception in 1860.
    See Iowa Code § 4806 (1860). Under this law, extrajudicial confessions of a
    defendant cannot result in a conviction in the absence of corroborating
    evidence of the crime charged. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(4). The general policy
    behind the statute is to help ensure convictions will not be based upon
    untrue or coerced confessions. Comments on Recent Cases, 
    36 Iowa L
    . Rev.
    694, 704 (1951); see also Warszower v. United States, 
    312 U.S. 342
    , 347, 
    61 S. Ct. 603
    , 606, 
    85 L. Ed. 876
    , 880 (1941) (“The rule requiring corroboration
    of confessions protects the administration of the criminal law against errors
    in convictions based upon untrue confessions alone.”).
    Although there is no confession by Meyers in this case to any of the
    charges, there were numerous admissions.       Admissions can constitute a
    confession when they “amount to an acknowledgement of the guilt of the
    offense charged.” 
    Capper, 539 N.W.2d at 364
    . As a result, admissions are
    treated with the same evidentiary precautions as confessions. See State v.
    Polly, 
    657 N.W.2d 462
    , 466 n.1 (Iowa 2003). Thus, admissions of essential
    facts or elements of the crime made after the alleged crime must be
    supported with sufficient corroborating evidence. 
    Id. Corroborating evidence
    is sufficient to support a conviction based on a
    confession when it tends to “confirm[] some material fact connecting the
    defendant with the crime.” State v. Robertson, 
    351 N.W.2d 790
    , 793 (Iowa
    9
    1984). It is sufficient as long as it supports the content of the confession
    and if, together with the confession, proves the elements of the charge
    against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.         State v. Wescott, 
    130 Iowa 1
    , 8, 
    104 N.W. 341
    , 344 (1905). Corroborating evidence may be either
    direct or circumstantial. See 
    Liggins, 524 N.W.2d at 187
    . It need not be
    strong evidence, “nor need it go to the whole of the case so long as it
    confirms some material fact connecting the defendant with the crime.” 
    Id. Circumstantial corroborating
    evidence may include several facts that, when
    combined, support the admission. 
    Id. Meyers admitted
    to instances of oral sex and sexual intercourse with
    Mindy in letters he wrote in jail in the spring of 2005. Meyers specifically
    recounted at least two instances of oral sex and sexual intercourse with
    Mindy in these letters.      At trial, the State also presented evidence that
    Meyers indicated the relationship and activity described in his letters to
    Mindy were “her choice.” Finally, the child protective worker testified that
    Meyers told her he and Mindy had “crossed the line,” and that he “knew it
    was wrong, but it happened.”
    The State also offered additional facts that corroborated these
    admissions. Aside from the testimony of the child protective worker and the
    AA sponsor, the State introduced the testimony of Mindy’s friend, who said
    Mindy disappeared with Meyers several times during a New Year’s Eve party
    into Meyers’ bedroom and that Meyers generally behaved romantically
    towards Mindy. The State also introduced evidence of the prior sexual abuse
    of Mindy by Meyers in 1994 and 2005. Finally, Mindy’s AA sponsor testified
    that Meyers and Mindy would sing a sexually explicit song to one another
    during   their   telephone    conversations.     Taken    individually,   these
    circumstances would not be legally conclusive as to the existence of any
    sexual encounters between Mindy and Meyers.               However, we find,
    10
    cumulatively, these circumstances “confirm[] some material fact connecting
    the defendant with the crime.” 
    Robertson, 351 N.W.2d at 793
    . As a result,
    we conclude the district court did not err in finding sufficient evidence that
    two sex acts occurred.
    B. Sufficient Evidence Sex Acts Were “By Force or Against the
    Will of” Mindy. Meyers next claims there was insufficient evidence the sex
    acts were done “against the will of” Mindy to support a conviction for sexual
    abuse in the third degree. See Iowa Code § 709.4(1). He claims the evidence
    of Mindy’s history with him is insufficient to establish her lack of consent,
    even when aided by expert opinion.            Consistent with the decision of the
    district court, the State asserts the statutory element of “by force or against
    the will” includes circumstances in which pervasive psychological coercion
    vitiates the consent of the victim.
    Structurally, Meyers argues his conduct in this case did not fall within
    any specific statutory category of section 709.4 that addresses the inability
    of the other person to consent, and there was no evidence presented at trial
    of either physical force exhibited by him or nonconsent voiced or exhibited
    by Mindy to support a conviction under the “by force or against the will”
    standard of section 709.4(1).         In particular, Meyers argues the State’s
    evidence attempted to show Mindy suffered from a mental defect, and the
    mental-defect standard of section 709.4(2)(a) does not include the inability of
    an otherwise mentally competent individual to consent to sex with just one
    particular person.
    At the outset, it is unnecessary for us to address Meyers’ argument
    that the “mental defect” standard under section 709.4(2)(a) is inapplicable to
    the circumstances presented in this case.              Meyers was charged and
    prosecuted under two categories of sexual abuse. The State alleged Meyers
    engaged in sex acts with Mindy either “by force or against” her will under
    11
    section 709.4(1) or while she was suffering from “a mental defect or
    incapacity” that precluded consent under section 709.4(2)(a).     The district
    court found insufficient evidence of a mental incapacity, but concluded there
    was sufficient evidence of psychological manipulation by Meyers to establish
    Mindy did not give effective consent under section 709.4(1).      The district
    court found the sex acts were against Mindy’s will based on evidence
    presented by the State’s expert witness. Thus, our task is to decide if the “by
    force or against the will” standard of section 709.4(1) includes consent
    negated by psychological factors and, if so, whether there was sufficient
    evidence presented in this case to support a conviction. See 3 Charles E.
    Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Law § 287, at 30–31 (14th ed. 1980) [hereinafter
    Torcia] (noting the terms “against the female’s will” and “without her
    consent” are synonymous).
    We begin our resolution of the sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue by first
    examining the applicable statutory language.         We recognize it is the
    responsibility of our legislature to define crimes.     State v. Welton, 
    300 N.W.2d 157
    , 160 (Iowa 1981).       Our task is to apply and interpret such
    statutes to carry out the legislative intent based on the facts and
    circumstances of each case.      See Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Div., 
    679 N.W.2d 586
    , 590 (Iowa 2004). When a statute is ambiguous, we employ our
    familiar rules of statutory interpretation to aid us in ascertaining the intent
    of the legislature. 
    McCullah, 787 N.W.2d at 94
    . A statute is ambiguous if
    reasonable minds could be uncertain as to “ ‘the general scope and meaning
    of the statute when all of its provisions are examined.’ ” 
    Id. (quoting Carolan
    v. Hill, 
    553 N.W.2d 882
    , 887 (Iowa 1996)). We are primarily guided by what
    the legislature said, not what it should or might have said. 
    Carolan, 553 N.W.2d at 888
    . Aside from the express language used in the statute, we also
    consider the overall object sought to be attained, the statute’s purpose and
    12
    underlying policies, and the consequences of various interpretations.
    
    McCullah, 787 N.W.2d at 94
    –95. In the end, a criminal statute cannot be
    expanded beyond those circumstances intended by the legislature to be
    within the scope of the statute. See State v. Hearn, 
    797 N.W.2d 577
    , 587
    (Iowa 2011) (recognizing the “time-honored rule that criminal liability cannot
    be   expanded    beyond   express     legislative   terms   by   construction   or
    implication”).
    In our search for legislative intent in this case, we first examine the
    legal history of the statute because it may shed light on whether the
    particular facts before us were intended to be governed by the current law.
    See 2B Norman J. Singer & J.D. Shambie Singer, Statutes & Statutory
    Construction § 50:1, at 156 (7th ed. 2008) [hereinafter Singer]. As with many
    other early criminal statutes, Iowa’s sexual abuse statute was based on the
    common law. The common law declared it unlawful for a man to engage in
    sexual intercourse with a woman by force and against her will.            Torcia,
    § 283, at 1. Over the years, statutes have expanded the common law crime
    to include additional specific circumstances or categories of nonconsensual
    conduct.   Model Penal Code & Commentaries § 213.1 cmt. 1, at 276–77
    (1980) [hereinafter Model Penal Code]. The first expansion was to specifically
    include children viewed by the law to be too young to effectively consent. 
    Id. § 213.1
    cmt. 1, at 276. This expansion occurred very early in history when
    an English statute expanded the crime to include sexual intercourse with a
    child under the age of ten years. 
    Id. It occurred
    so early in time that it is
    generally viewed as part of the common law and was readily accepted into
    American law. Torcia, § 291, at 43.
    Iowa followed the common law approach when it enacted its rape
    statute in 1851.   See Iowa Code § 2581 (1851).        This statute criminalized
    13
    sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten or with any other female
    when “by force and against her will.” 
    Id. Since that
    time, the Iowa legislature has built on the common law
    approach by expanding the crime to add more specific categories of offensive
    conduct.     These categories have been aligned with those circumstances
    commonly      recognized      in    other   states   and    generally     involve    sexual
    intercourse with individuals who are unconscious, drugged, or mentally
    incompetent. See Iowa Code § 709.4. Today, Iowa’s statute maintains its
    original common law standard of force and nonconsent, with only a slight
    alteration from the past:          Iowa Code section 709.4(1) makes it a crime to
    perform a sex act “by force or against the will of the other person” and
    declares such conduct to be sexual abuse in the third degree. 4 Iowa Code
    § 709.4(1) (emphasis added). Our legislature changed the conjunctive “and”
    to “or” in 1921.      See 1921 Iowa Acts ch. 192, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code
    § 12966 (1924)).
    Iowa’s sexual abuse statute then defines six additional categories of
    third-degree sexual abuse.          See 4 Robert R. Rigg, Iowa Practice: Criminal
    Law § 6.24, at 224 (2010).           The first category captures the circumstance
    when the other person “is suffering from a mental defect or incapacity which
    precludes giving consent.”          Iowa Code § 709.4(2)(a).       The second category
    prohibits sex acts with a person who is twelve or thirteen years of age.5 
    Id. 4Chapter 709
    is a comprehensive set of laws generally defining the scope of sex acts
    that are deemed offensive. Along with third-degree sexual abuse, the law also criminalizes
    sex abuse causing another person serious injury as first-degree sexual abuse, classified as a
    class “A” felony. Iowa Code § 709.2. Second-degree sexual abuse is a class “B” felony and
    includes sexual abuse committed while using a dangerous weapon, sex acts with a person
    under the age of twelve, and sex acts aided and abetted by one or more other individuals
    and committed by force or against the will of the victim. 
    Id. § 709.3.
    Several other
    categories of sex abuse that qualify as misdemeanors or class “D” felonies are also included
    in chapter 709. See 
    id. §§ 709.12,
    .15–.16.
    5A sex act with a child less than twelve years of age is prohibited as second-degree
    sexual abuse. Iowa Code § 709.3(2).
    14
    § 709.4(2)(b).   The third and fourth categories capture a variety of
    circumstances when the other person is fourteen or fifteen years of age and
    the defendant is a member of the same household, related by blood or
    affinity to the fourth degree, an authority figure, or four or more years older
    than the other person.       
    Id. § 709.4(2)(c).
          The fifth category involves
    situations in which the other person is under the influence of a controlled
    substance that prevents consent, and the defendant reasonably knows the
    person is under the influence of the substance. 
    Id. § 709.4(3).
    The sixth
    category criminalizes sex acts with a person who is “mentally incapacitated,
    physically incapacitated, or physically helpless.” 
    Id. § 709.4(4).
    While the
    categories describe fact-specific circumstances, each category continues to
    involve the absence of consent. Thus, consent remains the lynchpin of the
    crime, and the legislature has sought over the years to identify more specific
    circumstances of nonconsent while leaving the broader “against the will”
    standard in place to capture all circumstances of actual nonconsent. See 2A
    Singer § 47:17, at 378–79 (noting that, unless a contrary intention is
    apparent, when specific terms follow general terms, the general terms
    include everything embraced by the specific terms that follow along with
    things beyond the specific terms that are similar in nature though not
    expressly mentioned); see also 2A Singer § 47:25, at 429–35 (stating maxim
    of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies in narrow circumstances and
    is to be disregarded when its application would “thwart the legislative intent
    made apparent by the entire act”).      The structure of the statute does not
    foreclose   psychological   circumstances     that    could     work   to   establish
    nonconsent.
    Further    evidence    of   the   legislative    intent    for   psychological
    circumstances to be included in “against the will” language of Iowa Code
    section 709.4(1) can be found in the context of the surrounding statutes in
    15
    chapter 709. See Andover Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Grinnell Mut. Reins. Co.,
    
    787 N.W.2d 75
    , 82 (Iowa 2010) (noting “we interpret statutes in their
    context”).    Our legislature has specifically declared in section 709.5 that
    physical resistance is not required “to establish that an act of abuse is
    committed by force or against the will of a person.”          Iowa Code § 709.5.
    Thus, nonconsent under the “against the will” language of section 709.4(1)
    does not rely on the existence of physical resistance. Instead, the legislature
    expressed its intention that “the circumstances surrounding the commission
    of the act” be considered in determining whether the act was “by force or
    against the will of the other.” 
    Id. We have
    said that this language “means all
    the circumstances, subjective as well as objective” are considered. State v.
    Bauer, 
    324 N.W.2d 320
    , 322 (Iowa 1982).
    Additionally, section 709.1(1) declares the meaning of the phrase
    “against the will of the other” includes acts done while the person is in a
    state of unconsciousness. Iowa Code § 709.1(1). Clearly, the “against the
    will   of    another”   standard   seeks    to   broadly   protect   persons   from
    nonconsensual sex acts, even under circumstances showing the victim had
    no opportunity or ability to consent due to the inherently coercive nature of
    the circumstances.       Likewise, a psychological inability to consent broadly
    protects individuals from nonconsensual sex when particular circumstances
    have rendered that person incapable of consenting to the sexual advances of
    a particular person. Importantly, the statute as a whole expresses no limit
    on the conduct or circumstance that can be used to establish nonconsent
    under section 709.4(1). See 
    id. § 4.2
    (directing courts to liberally construe
    the provisions of the Code “with a view to promote its objects and assist the
    parties in obtaining justice”); see also 
    Hearn, 797 N.W.2d at 587
    (noting in
    our interpretation of statutes we “decline to narrow a broad legislative
    16
    formulation by implying or constructing limitations not present in the
    statute and undercutting its obvious public purpose”).
    The overall purpose of Iowa’s sexual abuse statute is to protect the
    freedom of choice to engage in sex acts. See State v. Sullivan, 
    298 N.W.2d 267
    , 271 (Iowa 1980).       The sex abuse statute exists to protect a person’s
    freedom of choice and to punish “unwanted and coerced intimacy.” Model
    Penal Code § 213.1 cmt. 4, at 301.       A person who imposes a sex act on
    another by force or compulsion under any circumstance violates the other’s
    protected interest.   
    Id. Yet, nonconsent
    includes both consent that is
    nonexistent and consent that is ineffectual, and these circumstances have
    been largely assimilated into the statute to account for its present expanded
    categories of rape.   
    Id. Nevertheless, “the
    unifying principle among this
    diversity of conduct is the idea of meaningful consent.”         
    Id. Consent precludes
    rape, which conversely means the law of rape focuses on
    “imposition by the actor under circumstances where there is an actual
    failure of consent or where the law is prepared to characterize an actual
    consent as incompetent.”      
    Id. Accordingly, sexual
    abuse today remains a
    crime predicated on sex acts done by imposition.         
    Id. This concept
    of
    imposition has not been narrowed in any way by our legislature over the
    years, but it remains at the heart of the statute to capture both case-specific
    circumstances of an “actual failure of consent” as well as circumstances
    when the legislature has declared “consent as incompetent” or nonexistent.
    See 
    id. This statutory
    approach to nonconsent under section 709.4(1) is
    consistent with our prior cases. In Bauer, the defendant entered the home of
    the victim through a window during the early morning hours, while the
    victim was sleeping on a living room 
    sofa. 324 N.W.2d at 321
    . The victim
    awoke after the defendant began kissing her.       
    Id. He then
    removed her
    17
    clothing and engaged in sexual intercourse. 
    Id. The defendant
    expressed no
    threats and used no force, other than what was necessary to accomplish the
    sexual intercourse. 
    Id. The victim
    never physically resisted the defendant
    and voiced no objections to his actions.        
    Id. Instead, the
    victim made a
    conscious decision to refrain from any outward protest because she feared
    such resistance would place her in greater danger.            
    Id. The victim
    felt
    “paralyzed,” unable to resist the defendant’s advances, as she remembered a
    past incident involving another woman found murdered in a ditch. 
    Id. at 321–22.
    We affirmed the conviction for sexual abuse and rejected the claim
    by the defendant that the circumstances did not amount to “force against
    the will” of the victim. 
    Id. at 322.
    We found the circumstances produced
    fear in the mind of the victim that subjectively rendered her incapable of
    protesting and resisting, which supported a finding that the advances of the
    defendant were imposed against her will. 
    Id. Importantly, Bauer
    illustrates that the mental state of the victim is a
    proper   circumstance    to    consider    in   determining    if   a   sex   act   is
    nonconsensual. The paralysis felt by the victim in Bauer is compatible with
    the evidence of the fragile and frozen emotional state of Mindy brought about
    by her unique and traumatizing history with Meyers as described by the
    expert witness in this case.
    More directly, we recently observed the legislature never intended to
    limit the circumstances that could be used to vitiate consent under the “by
    force or against the will” standard of section 709.4(1) by specifically listing
    the circumstances or categories under which consent may be vitiated. State
    v. Bolsinger, 
    709 N.W.2d 560
    , 565 (Iowa 2006). Thus, we held that fraud in
    fact could be used to establish nonconsent under section 709.4(1), even
    though it was not included as a specific category of nonconsent under the
    statute. 
    Id. at 564–65.
    The approach we have taken in our prior cases does
    18
    not exclude consideration of a victim’s psychological circumstances that may
    vitiate consent.
    Additionally, other states have considered whether the statutory
    element     of   “force”    required   to   support   sexual   abuse   can   include
    psychological force. In Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 
    510 A.2d 1217
    , 1226 (Pa.
    1986), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held the state’s rape statute’s
    reference to “forcible compulsion” includes “not only physical force or
    violence but also moral, psychological, or intellectual force used to compel a
    person to engage in sexual intercourse against that person’s will.”             The
    analysis of force by the Pennsylvania court focused on “the totality of the
    circumstances.”       
    Id. The court
    cited various factors for the analysis,
    including
    the respective ages of the victim and the accused, the respective
    mental and physical conditions of the victim and the accused,
    the atmosphere and physical setting in which the incident was
    alleged to have taken place, the extent to which the accused may
    have been in a position of authority, domination or custodial
    control over the victim, and whether the victim was under
    duress.
    
    Id. The Pennsylvania
    legislature codified the court’s definition of “forcible
    compulsion” soon after the court’s decision.           18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3101
    (2008) (defining “forcible compulsion” as “[c]ompulsion by use of physical,
    intellectual, moral, emotional or psychological force, either express or
    implied”); see also Dan M. Kahan, Culture, Cognition, and Consent:             Who
    Perceives What, and Why, in Acquaintance-Rape Cases, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev.
    729, 742 & n.45 (citing and describing the 1995 Pennsylvania act amending
    the statute defining “forcible compulsion”).          Rhode Island also recognizes
    psychological coercion as a form of constructive force, but only when the
    coercion amounts to a threat. State v. Burke, 
    522 A.2d 725
    , 735 (R.I. 1987)
    (“A threat may consist of the imposition of psychological pressure on one
    19
    who, under the circumstances, is vulnerable and susceptible to such
    pressure.”).
    Similarly, Ohio courts consider the relative age and relationship of the
    parties to determine whether psychological force is sufficient. See State v.
    Eskridge, 
    526 N.E.2d 304
    , 306 (Ohio 1988). However, Ohio’s approach to
    psychological force was limited in a subsequent case, State v. Schaim, 
    600 N.E.2d 661
    , 665 (Ohio 1992). In Schaim, the court determined that a father
    who had a history of sexual acts with his adoptive daughter was not guilty of
    raping her when she became a twenty-year-old adult. 
    Schaim, 600 N.E.2d at 665
    –66.   The court held the distinction between psychological force and
    physical force was apparent when the victim was an adult child because an
    adult child “is not compelled to submit to her father in the same manner as
    is a four-year-old girl.    She is no longer completely dependent on her
    parents, and is more nearly their equal in size, strength, and mental
    resources.” 
    Id. at 665.
    The court firmly held the age of the victim child was
    significant because
    a child of tender years has no real power to resist his or her
    parent’s command, and every command contains an implicit
    threat of punishment for failure to obey.        Under these
    circumstances, a minimal degree of force will satisfy the
    elements of forcible rape. . . .
    . . . [A] pattern of incest will not substitute for the element
    of force where the state introduces no evidence that an adult
    victim believed that the defendant might use physical force
    against her.
    
    Id. Finally, the
    consideration of psychological circumstances is consistent
    with academic commentary examining the issue. Some scholars have opined
    the definition of “force” should include psychological force akin to
    parameters set out in contract law. Ann T. Spence, A Contract Reading of
    Rape Law:      Redefining Force to Include Coercion, 37 Colum. J.L. & Soc.
    20
    Probs. 57, 57 (2003) [hereinafter Spence] (suggesting contract theory be
    extended to criminal law definition of “force”); see also James T. McHugh,
    Interpreting the “Sexual Contract” in Pennsylvania:        The Motivations and
    Legacy of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert A. Berkowitz, 60 Alb. L.
    Rev. 1677, 1686 (1997).       In Bolsinger, we held “[f]raud in fact vitiates
    consent” to sex.       
    Bolsinger, 709 N.W.2d at 564
    .        Similarly, contract
    principles applicable to finding adequate agreement between people in other
    situations may aid in understanding whether there has been an equal
    agreement to sex.      Spence, 37 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. at 57; see also
    Susan Estrich, Rape, 95 Yale L.J. 1087, 1120 (1986) (urging adoption of
    standard that prohibits fraud to procure sex as contract law forbids fraud to
    procure money). For example, “the doctrine of undue influence proscribes
    the use of emotional or psychological force as a means of unfair persuasion
    in a close relationship. . . . [and] [t]he doctrine of unconscionability can void
    contracts that are unfair or reflect an imbalance in bargaining power.”
    Spence, 37 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. at 70. While there are also significant
    differences between rape and illegal contracts, the doctrines may be
    nevertheless helpful as a guide for conceptualizing the important freedom of
    each individual to consent to sex that is protected by Iowa Code chapter 709.
    
    Id. at 75.
    Considering the legislative history of Iowa’s sexual abuse statute, the
    language and purpose of the statute, our prior cases interpreting the statute,
    and the persuasive authority from other jurisdictions and scholars on the
    topic, we conclude psychological force or inability to consent based on the
    relationship and circumstance of the participants may give rise to a
    conviction under the “against the will” element of section 709.4(1).         This
    statutory    element   considers   all   circumstances   that   establish   actual
    nonconsent, including any psychological circumstances particular to the
    21
    participants. Thus, we turn to consider the facts in this case to decide if the
    evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. In doing so, we follow our
    long-standing admonition to review the evidence in a light most favorable to
    upholding the verdict. State v. Kraklio, 
    560 N.W.2d 16
    , 17 (Iowa 1997).
    In assessing the evidence in this case, we note section 709.4(1) does
    not require evidence of both force and lack of consent, but one or the other.
    Iowa Code § 709.4(1).     Nevertheless, meaningful consent is the important
    inquiry, and this inquiry normally takes into account circumstances
    indicating any overreaching by the accused, together with circumstances
    indicating any lack of consent by the other person.
    In this case, the State’s expert, Dr. Hutchison, rendered an opinion
    based on the facts and inferences from the evidence established at trial that
    a person in Mindy’s situation would have been unable to consent to a sex act
    with Meyers.     Expert testimony may be used to assist a fact finder in
    determining a victim’s state of mind as long as the expert does not testify to
    the ultimate fact of the defendant’s guilt or innocence. See State v. Griffin,
    
    564 N.W.2d 370
    , 374–75 (Iowa 1997) (recognizing evidence of battered
    women’s syndrome from expert is admissible to show psychological reason
    for victim’s recanting of accusation and refusal to testify against defendant);
    see also State v. Allen, 
    565 N.W.2d 333
    , 338 (Iowa 1997) (holding expert
    witnesses “may express opinions on matters explaining the pertinent mental
    and physical symptoms of the victims of abuse” if expert testified about the
    effects of the victim’s mental condition on her ability to tell the truth); State
    v. Gettier, 
    438 N.W.2d 1
    , 6 (Iowa 1989) (approving expert testimony linked to
    an explanation of PTSD and the typical reaction of a rape victim); State v.
    Chancy, 
    391 N.W.2d 231
    , 234 (Iowa 1986) (noting in third-degree sex abuse
    trial that “there seems to be no question about the potential of psychological
    evidence in the present case to assist the trier of fact[, and] [t]he victim’s lack
    22
    of mental capacity is . . . key element in the crime charged”). We give the
    district court’s assessment of the credibility of Dr. Hutchison’s opinion
    regarding Mindy’s mental state considerable deference. In re Det. of Barnes,
    
    689 N.W.2d 455
    , 457 (Iowa 2004).
    Based on the history between Meyers and Mindy, together with the
    expert   testimony   at   trial   assessing   all   the   surrounding   facts   and
    circumstances in this case, we conclude substantial evidence supports the
    finding by the district court that the sex acts were performed at a time when
    Mindy was unable to consent to sex with him. Meyers did not challenge the
    admissibility of the expert testimony, only that it was insufficient to support
    a conviction.   Yet, all the facts and circumstances presented at trial,
    including the expert testimony, were sufficient for a fact finder to infer the
    sex acts were nonconsensual.
    There was evidence that Meyers pursued and engaged in a sexual and
    romantic relationship with his high-school-age stepdaughter while she was
    in a very vulnerable psychological state. Her vulnerability was not only due
    to her crack cocaine addiction, her estrangement from her mother, and her
    need for support and shelter, but it was also based on the history of sexual
    and physical abuse inflicted by Meyers in the past. In addition to Mindy’s
    condition, Meyers was a controlling person and Mindy’s father figure. All the
    circumstances together, including the disparity in age between Meyers and
    Mindy, the background and history of their relationship, the authority
    exercised by Meyers, the circumstances leading up to the establishment of a
    romantic relationship, and Dr. Hutchison’s opinion concerning the inability
    of Mindy to consent in light of all the circumstances, support a finding that
    23
    the sex acts engaged in between Meyers and Mindy were “by force or against
    the will” of Mindy. 6
    IV. Sufficient Evidence of Lascivious Conduct with a Minor.
    To support the charge of lascivious conduct with a minor, the State
    must show (1) Meyers was over eighteen years old; (2) Meyers was in a
    position of authority over Mindy; (3) Mindy was under the age of eighteen;
    and (4) Meyers forced, persuaded, or coerced Mindy to disrobe or partially
    disrobe for the purpose of satisfying the sexual desires of either of them.
    Iowa Code § 709.14.          Meyers argues there was insufficient evidence to
    establish he forced Mindy to “disrobe or partially disrobe” for the purpose of
    satisfying his sexual desires. The State presented evidence of Meyers’ age
    and of Mindy’s age as well as evidence that Meyers was Mindy’s father figure
    from the time Mindy was six years old and that he was the “controlling
    figure” in the home at that time. It also presented Meyers’ March 11 letter
    describing Mindy’s body, along with the testimony of witnesses supporting
    the existence of a sexual relationship between Mindy and Meyers. For the
    same reasons we find substantial evidence exists to show Meyers performed
    sex acts against Mindy’s will, we also find the district court did not err in
    6Meyers  argued on appeal that inclusion of psychological factors to negate consent in
    the “mental defect or incapacity” category of sexual abuse would render the statute too
    broad and presents a serious danger of overcriminalization of sexual relationships viewed
    socially unacceptable but not intended to be punished under the statute. While we do not
    address the argument as it pertains to the mental defect or incapacity category, we
    recognize the same concern has been voiced with regard to an “against the will of” standard
    as well. See Donald A. Dripps, Beyond Rape: An Essay on the Difference Between the
    Presence of Force and the Absence of Consent, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 1780, 1792 (1992)
    (advising against application of a broad definition of lack of consent to avoid “the sweeping
    criminalization of sex”); see also Model Penal Code § 213.1 cmt. 4, at 302 (noting an
    overemphasis on nonconsent may unintentionally overbroaden the law). While this claim
    might have appeal under different facts, it does not under the specific facts and
    circumstances of this case. The facts of this case fall within Iowa’s criminal statute
    prohibiting sex acts “by force or against the will of the other.”
    24
    finding sufficient evidence Meyers coerced Mindy to disrobe to satisfy his
    sexual desires.
    V. Meyers’ Pro Se Claim.
    Meyers has filed a pro se brief in this case, asserting the district court
    erred by failing to rule on a motion to dismiss in this case. Meyers claims
    this failure violated his constitutional right to due process.   No motion to
    dismiss appears in the record before us on this case. Issues on appeal not
    raised in the district court are deemed waived.       Meier v. Senecaut, 
    641 N.W.2d 532
    , 537 (Iowa 2002). Consequently, we do not address a violation
    of Meyers’ constitutional right to due process.
    VI. Conclusion.
    After consideration of all the issues presented for our review, we affirm
    the judgment and sentence of the district court and affirm the decision of the
    court of appeals.
    DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT
    JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
    All justices concur except Mansfield, J., who takes no part.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08–1524

Citation Numbers: 799 N.W.2d 132, 2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 42

Judges: Cady, Mansfield

Filed Date: 6/24/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024

Authorities (23)

State v. Capper , 1995 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 209 ( 1995 )

Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Division of Iowa Department of ... , 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 166 ( 2004 )

Andover Volunteer Fire Department v. Grinnell Mutual ... , 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 88 ( 2010 )

State v. Jones , 233 Iowa 843 ( 1943 )

State v. Bauer , 1982 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1482 ( 1982 )

State v. Chancy , 1986 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1241 ( 1986 )

State v. Griffin , 1997 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 154 ( 1997 )

State v. Bolsinger , 2006 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 18 ( 2006 )

Warszower v. United States , 61 S. Ct. 603 ( 1941 )

State v. McCullah , 2010 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 89 ( 2010 )

State v. Allen , 1997 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 178 ( 1997 )

State v. Gettier , 1989 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 57 ( 1989 )

State v. Liggins , 1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 254 ( 1994 )

Meier v. SENECAUT III , 2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 29 ( 2002 )

State v. Sullivan , 1980 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 976 ( 1980 )

In Re Detention of Barnes , 2004 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 302 ( 2004 )

Carolan v. Hill , 1996 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 410 ( 1996 )

State v. Welton , 1981 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 864 ( 1981 )

State v. Robertson , 1984 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1199 ( 1984 )

State v. Polly , 2003 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 43 ( 2003 )

View All Authorities »