Court Opinion

ID: 9930731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 17:05:29.325456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:11.375724
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 23-0163
                             Filed February 7, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ROBERT STEWART EAKIN Sr.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

       Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, John R. Flynn,

Judge.

       A defendant appeals two convictions for third-degree sexual abuse.

AFFIRMED.

       Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

       Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

       Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. Buller, J., takes

no part.
                                             2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

       This appeal marks the second time we have reviewed Robert Eakin’s sexual

abuse convictions. In 2020, a jury convicted him of three counts of sexual abuse

in the third degree. On appeal, we affirmed one count but reversed the other two

convictions and remanded for retrial. State v. Eakin, No. 20-1688, 2022 WL

3067271, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2022). A second jury returned guilty verdicts

on both counts. Eakin again seeks a new trial, alleging the district court should

have excluded evidence of the sexual abuse underlying the conviction that we

affirmed in the first appeal. Because that evidence was admissible under Iowa

Code section 701.11 (2022), we affirm.

       I.     Facts and Prior Proceedings

       Robert and Mary Eakin adopted A.E. from the foster care system when she

was ten years old.1      In her preteen years living with the Eakins, A.E. would

sometimes be left alone with Robert. On those occasions, he would often ask her

to “crack” his back by walking on it as he lay on his stomach on the floor. In the

same timeframe, outside Mary’s presence, Robert repeatedly talked about sex

education—or what he called “the birds and the bees”—with A.E.

        When A.E. turned thirteen, Robert started demanding more. A.E. recalled

that he would “[j]ust have me crack his back and then he’d ask for other stuff.” By

“other stuff” she meant “sexual activities.” For instance, he would lay on his back

on the floor, pull down his pants, and ask her to put her hand on his penis and

“perform masturbation for him.” When asked how many times Robert asked her

1 Because it is necessary to discuss both Robert Eakin and his wife in this opinion,

we will use their first names for clarity.
                                         3

to touch his penis, she answered “too many to count.” She also testified that he

solicited her to perform “oral sex” on him countless times. Most often the sex acts

occurred in A.E.’s bedroom. Whenever she refused to engage in these sex acts,

Robert “would get whiney and then he’d keep asking.” When she gave in, he would

reward her with social media time on his cell phone or a piece of pie.

       Mary was never present when the sex acts occurred. She often left the

house to care for her elderly mother who lived in an apartment across the street.

But one evening in April 2020, Mary returned to the house and found A.E.’s

bedroom door closed. When Mary pushed it open, she discovered Robert naked

from the waist down and A.E. dressed in pajamas. According to A.E., she had her

hand on Robert’s penis just before Mary walked in. Mary’s discovery of the abuse

“scared” A.E. so much that she cut the screen, climbed out her bedroom window,

and ran to a friend’s house. The friend’s family encouraged A.E. to tell law

enforcement what had been happening, which she did.

       The State charged Robert with one count of second-degree sexual abuse

and four counts of third-degree sexual abuse. The jury acquitted him of second-

degree sexual abuse and one count of third-degree sexual abuse; it convicted him

of three counts of third-degree sexual abuse. Those counts identified acts in 2018,

2019, and 2020.     In the first appeal, we reversed two convictions on a jury

instruction error.2 But because there was overwhelming evidence to support the

April 2020 offense, we affirmed that conviction.

2 Our decision also found that Robert’s admissions to police that A.E. “touched his

privates” were inadmissible as a product of promissory leniency by the interviewing
detective. In the second trial, the court only allowed the detective to testify about
Robert’s initial denial that any sex acts occurred with A.E.
                                         4

       On retrial, the State again alleged that Robert sexually abused A.E. from

2018 until she ran from the house in 2020. The State sought a pretrial ruling on

the admissibility of testimony from Mary and A.E. about that April 2020 encounter.

It asserted that Mary’s observations “would support that [Robert] had recently

engaged in the same sexual act described by A.E.” The State argued that the

evidence was admissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b) and Iowa Code

section 701.11. The defense disagreed, moving to exclude testimony about the

April 2020 encounter. Robert’s motion in limine alleged that the testimony was

inadmissible as propensity evidence; was not relevant to the crimes at issue; and

if relevant, was unduly prejudicial. The court allowed the evidence to come in

under section 701.11. At trial, Mary corroborated A.E.’s version of that final act of

sexual abuse by Robert. Although he testified at the first trial, Robert chose not to

take the witness stand at the second trial.

       The jury convicted Robert on both counts.          And the court imposed

consecutive ten-year sentences. Robert now appeals.

       II.    Scope and Standard of Review

       We review rulings admitting evidence under Iowa Code section 701.11 for

an abuse of discretion. State v. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d 95, 99 (Iowa 2008). We only

find an abuse when the district court exercises its discretion on clearly untenable

grounds or to a clearly unreasonable extent. Id.
                                          5

       III.   Analysis

       Robert raises a single issue on appeal: Did the district court abuse its

discretion in allowing the jury to hear evidence about the sexual abuse occasioning

the conviction affirmed in the first appeal?3

       Because the district court found the evidence admissible under Iowa Code

section 701.11, we start with that statute:

              In a criminal prosecution in which a defendant has been
       charged with sexual abuse, evidence of the defendant’s commission
       of another sexual abuse is admissible and may be considered for its
       bearing on any matter for which the evidence is relevant. This
       evidence, though relevant, may be excluded if the probative value of
       the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
       prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
       considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
       presentation of cumulative evidence.        This evidence is not
       admissible unless the state presents clear proof of the commission
       of the prior act of sexual abuse.

Iowa Code § 701.11(1).4

       This provision invites a two-step analysis. First, the State must offer “clear

proof” that the defendant in a sexual-abuse prosecution committed another act of

sexual abuse against the same victim. Direct testimony from the victim is sufficient

3 The State contends that Robert did not preserve error on his challenge to Mary’s

testimony because defense counsel objected only during A.E.’s testimony. But
because the district court granted Robert’s request to have a standing objection to
the other-acts evidence challenged in his motion in limine, we find error preserved
as to both witnesses. See State v. Juste, 939 N.W.2d 664, 672 (Iowa Ct. App.
2019) (finding error preserved but noting that “standing objections are not a
favored trial practice”).
4 Our supreme court has held that this statute is constitutional when applied to

other acts of sexual abuse involving the same victim. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d at 102.
But it is unconstitutional with respect to the admissibility of other sexual abuse
involving a different victim. See State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757, 762 (Iowa 2010).
                                         6

clear proof to meet that requirement.5 See Reyes, 744 N.W.2d at 101. Once the

State clears that hurdle, the evidence “may be considered for its bearing on any

matter for which it is relevant.” Iowa Code § 701.11(1). Second, even relevant

evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the

danger of unfair prejudice. Id. In reviewing the district court’s ruling, we retrace

both steps of the statutory test.

       A. For what matter was the 2020 incident relevant?

       Robert notes that the State’s purpose for offering this evidence was to show

his “sexual motivation and attraction specifically to this victim.”     Robert then

counters that “given the nature of the State’s case against [him] for the charged

offenses, the issue of [his] passion for illicit sexual relations with A.E. was not a

legitimate issue at trial.” Why not? In his view, the evidence was not relevant

because he did not contend the acts were innocent or accidental nor was identity

an issue. Rather, his defense was “a complete denial that the sex acts occurred.”

       Contrary to Robert’s reading of the statute, admission of other sexual abuse

under section 701.11 is not limited to proving a lack of accident or the identity of

the perpetrator. If there’s clear proof of another sex act by the accused against

the same victim, the fact finder may consider it for any matter for which it is

relevant. See State v. Thoren, 970 N.W.2d 611, 625 (Iowa 2022) (“Iowa Code

section 701.11 expressly allows propensity evidence in sexual assault cases.”).

Here, there was a legitimate issue as to whether the sex acts alleged by A.E. in

5 Here, the proof was even clearer.Recall that the first jury found proof beyond a
reasonable doubt to convict Robert of the 2020 sexual abuse, and we found
overwhelming evidence to support that conviction in the first appeal.
                                          7

fact happened. The jury in the second trial heard that Robert denied the allegations

in his police interview. Therefore, Mary’s corroborative testimony about the April

2020 sexual abuse was relevant to whether the charged conduct actually occurred.

See State v. Wright, No. 12-2138, 2014 WL 956064, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App.

Mar. 12, 2014); see also State v. Blaufuss, No. 15-2174, 2016 WL 6396345, at *1–

4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2016) (rejecting claim counsel was ineffective for failing

to object to evidence of prior sexual abuse because evidence “was crucial to the

prosecution’s case because Blaufuss denied any sexual contact with her”). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the jury to consider the April

2020 sexual abuse as relevant to Robert’s propensity for illicit sexual relations with

A.E. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d at 102; see State v. Munz, 355 N.W.2d 576, 581 (Iowa

1984) (explaining that “subsequent acts are as probative as those prior to the date

of the charged offense”).

       B. Was the probative value of the 2020 incident outweighed by the
          danger of unfair prejudice and jury confusion?

       As his fallback position, Robert contends that the district court should have

excluded this evidence “because its probative value was substantially outweighed

by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury.”

He asserts that evidence of the April 2020 event was “similar in many ways to the

allegations of the previous incidents.” That similarity, in his estimate, makes it

more prejudicial. See Cox, 781 N.W.2d at 769. He also maintains that testimony
                                          8

about the April 2020 incident “dominated” the trial, overshadowing the evidence

related to the charged conduct.6

       Addressing Robert’s last point first, we disagree that the proof underlying

the affirmed conviction “dominated” the second trial. The district court did not allow

the subsequent-act evidence to become the “focus” of the jury’s attention. In

denying Robert’s new trial motion, the court found the April 2020 “evidence was

narrowly tailored and ultimately very similar to the overall sexual abuse allegations

made by the victim.” And contrary to Robert’s contention, the similarity of the 2020

offense to the charged offenses increased its probative value and decreased the

danger of unfair prejudice. See Reyes, 744 N.W.2d at 103 (upholding admission

of prior sexual abuse because it was “offered in a direct, concise, and

noninflamatory fashion and was similar to the underlying charge against Reyes”).

       Beyond its similarity to the charged conduct, the 2020 incident was essential

to telling the story of these crimes. Because A.E. alleged that Robert had been

sexually abusing her for years and she said nothing, the prosecution had the task

of explaining A.E.’s delayed disclosure to the jury. The events of April 2020 were

inexorably linked to that explanation. The abuse surfaced only when Mary walked

into A.E.’s bedroom and found her husband in the middle of the sex act. The

substantial probative value of that event was not outweighed by the risk of unfair

prejudice.

6 Robert notes that not only did A.E. and Mary tell the jury about that later event,

but A.E.’s friend and her friend’s father testified that the event precipitated A.E.’s
report to police.
                                         9

       Finally, any risk of prejudice was diminished by the district court giving the

jury this cautionary instruction:

       Evidence has been received concerning a subsequent wrongful act
       alleged to be committed by the defendant on [A.E.] The defendant
       is not on trial for this act. This evidence must be shown by clear
       proof and such evidence may only be considered for the purpose of
       establishing the defendant’s sexual passion or desire for [A.E.] You
       may not consider this act as proving that the defendant committed
       the acts charged in this case.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on Iowa Code

section 701.11(1) to admit evidence of the April 2020 sexual abuse.

       AFFIRMED.