IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0555

Filed March 8, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MATTHEW L. WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Myron L. 

Gookin, Judge.

Matthew Wilson appeals from the judgment and sentence following a jury 

verdict finding him guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2017).
2

GOODHUE, Senior Judge.

Matthew Levi Wilson appeals from the judgment and sentence following a 

jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree.

I. Background Facts and Circumstances

Wilson’s daughter, M.W., reported that when she was eight years old and 

traveling in Wilson’s van, he asked her, “Do you want to stop somewhere and 

have it.” Thereafter, Wilson stopped the van on a side road and told her to get in 

the back bench of the van. Wilson followed her, unzipped his shorts, exposed 

his penis, had her put her hand on it, and told her to shake it like a bottle. M.W. 

observed “white stuff” come from Wilson’s penis. When a black truck drove by 

the van, Wilson told M.W. they should leave. Wilson retrieved a sock from the 

van, cleaned himself up with it, and threw it out the window. Wilson asked her 

not to tell anyone. However, when she was questioned on September 15, 2015,

by Amanda Seymour, a Department of Human Services worker, M.W. gave a 

rendition of the above events. Seymour contacted Washington County Deputy 

Chad Ellis, and an investigation began.

On October 8, Seymour and Ellis conducted an interview of Wilson at his 

father’s home, where Wilson was living. It is the nature of that interview with 

Wilson, conducted by Ellis, that is an issue in this appeal. Wilson’s father was 

asked to leave the room prior to conducting the interview. Ellis, who was 

dressed in street clothes, had a badge on his belt and a firearm on his right side. 

Wilson had had prior contact with Ellis as a law enforcement officer. 

Ellis and Wilson first discussed Wilson’s family concerns and the extra 

burdens that had been placed on him because of his wife’s illness. Ellis falsely 
3

represented to Wilson a witness who had driven by could identify Wilson. Ellis 

questioned Wilson by conveying an attitude of empathy and concern, saying 

such things as, “We’re just trying to understand,” and that he and Seymour 

wanted “to get help” and “understand why it happened.” Ellis continued by 

saying they understood that “[t]hings happen, man. We get it,” and he asked 

[Wilson] to “[t]ell us why. Why you stopped.” Wilson insisted there was nothing 

to say. Ellis continued expressing empathy and stating the family needed 

closure, that he and Seymour were trying to get help for those that needed it, and 

that it was for the family’s good. Ellis suggested that counseling and therapy 

were available. Ellis stated that he knew Wilson was sad that it happened, that 

they could remove the weight off of Wilson’s shoulders, and that what had 

happened had to be bugging Wilson. After continuing to go through a narration 

of what Ellis thought had happened, Ellis would express empathy by saying, “You 

are sad and wished this hadn’t happened.” Ellis then asked Wilson if he left the 

driver seat when he parked the van, and after a period of silence, Wilson said 

they sat in the third seat of the van. Finally, Wilson said M.W. touched him on 

the penis. Ellis asked Wilson if she had been shaking it like a pop bottle, and 

Wilson apparently responded affirmatively. Ellis followed by asking, “So you had 

an erection?” and asking whether he ejaculated. Wilson again responded 

affirmatively. At that point, Ellis believed he had probable cause to make an 

arrest and read Wilson his rights. 

Wilson filed a motion to suppress the confession made at the interview,

alleging that Ellis induced his confession with promises of leniency. The motion 

was overruled, and the denial of the motion is the focus of Wilson’s appeal.
4

II. Error Preservation

Adverse rulings on motions to suppress preserve error for appellate 

review. State v. Breuer, 577 N.W.2d 41, 44 (Iowa 1998).

III. Standard of Review

Challenges to the admissibility of confessions are reviewed for errors of 

law, and when a claim of a promise of leniency is made in challenging a 

confession, the common law evidentiary test is applicable when “there is no 

dispute as to the words used” or their meaning under the circumstances. State v. 

Polk, 812 N.W.2d 670, 674 (Iowa 2012) (citation omitted).

IV. Merits

Wilson maintains Ellis’s interview contained implied promises of leniency 

in order to obtain a confession. An accused’s confession is not admissible if 

procured by an improper promise of leniency. Id. Wilson maintains the interview 

Ellis conducted is precisely like the interview found to have been inadmissible 

because of a promise of leniency in State v. Howard, 825 N.W.2d 32, 40-41

(Iowa 2012) (holding Howard’s confession was inadmissible because the 

detective created a false impression that if Howard admitted to the sexual abuse, 

he would be sent to a treatment facility in lieu of further punishment).

Iowa follows the evidentiary test to determine the status of a confession as 

opposed to the totality-of-the-circumstances test. State v. Madsen, 813 N.W.2d 

714, 726 (Iowa 2012). Under the evidentiary test, a confession cannot be 

received into evidence if the suspect has been influenced by any threat or 

promise. Id. at 724. It follows that an admission into evidence of such a 

confession is a matter of law to be decided by the court. See State v. Wilson, 
5

247 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Iowa 1976) (holding that where a defendant objects to the 

admissibility of an alleged confession, the trial court must conduct an evidentiary 

hearing outside the presence of the jury and make the requisite findings and 

determination as to its admissibility). Our supreme court’s retention of the per se 

exclusionary rule eliminates the need of determining if, in fact, the defendant 

relied on a promise of leniency in confessing. Madsen, 813 N.W.2d at 726. Our 

supreme court has stated that the purpose of the evidentiary rule is to provide 

clarity. Id. at 725. The confession must be excluded if “any degree of influence 

by force or other inducement” has been exerted on the suspect. Id. at 726. The 

evidentiary rule focuses on an examination of the language used to determine 

whether the investigator’s questions gave even an implicit promise of any reward 

as a result of a confession. Howard, 825 N.W.2d at 40. We can conclude from 

the sources cited that it is an objective test, dependent on any inference that 

could reasonably be drawn from the language of the interviewer used and their

meaning, explicit or implicit, under the circumstances. Madsen, 813 N.W.2d at 

726 (“The use of a per se exclusionary rule eliminates the need for the court to 

attempt to read the mind of defendant to determine if his confession, in fact, was 

induced by or made in reliance upon the promise of leniency.”).

The case under consideration can be easily distinguished from Howard. 

In Howard, the investigator asked, “How do we get the help, get you the help you 

need?” 825 N.W.2d at 36. Then later the investigator asked, “Do you need 

help?” and “Do you think we should help you? There’s people out there that can 

help you.” Id. The interviewer stated there are treatment centers with doctors 

and nurses that treat sex addiction. Id. at 36-37. He asked, “What kind of help 
6

do you need?” and later asked, “The first thing is that we get you help, right?” Id.

at 37. Finally, the interviewer stated, “You know that no matter what you tell me 

today, I’ll give you a ride home, drop you off, wherever you want to go.” Id. at 38. 

Ellis never told Wilson that there was treatment and counseling specifically 

available for him. He used the term generally and in relation to the victim and to 

the family. He never stated that he would drive Wilson home and drop him off 

wherever he wanted to go. 

Although Howard is distinguishable, it does not necessarily mean the 

language here failed to include a promise of leniency. Ellis expressed sympathy 

and mentioned treatment of one kind or another repeatedly. However, to hold 

that a promise of leniency was extended under the facts of this case would be 

tantamount to restraining an interviewer from expressing empathy and using the 

words “therapy,” “counseling,” or “closure” when questioning a suspect, even 

though the victim is a family member. Certainly Ellis never specifically offered 

Wilson therapy, counselling, or another benefit as an alternative to a criminal 

charge or incarceration. We conclude these words do not necessarily imply a 

promise of leniency and they did not under the facts of this case. Ellis never 

expressly said that counseling would even be available to Wilson, except as he 

may have been included as a part of the family, and there was no suggestion that 

he would be given a ride home or any other explicit or implicit promise of 

leniency. We conclude the court correctly denied the motion to suppress and 

admitted the confession. 

AFFIRMED.