Court of Appeals overturns Spahr’s conviction
Bruce Spahr during his trial back in 2013 (file photo).
Oskaloosa, Iowa- Another felony conviction in Mahaska County has been overturned on appeal, this time by the Iowa Court of Appeals. Bruce Spahr was convicted of one count of second-degree sexual abuse by a Mahaska County jury in 2013. The same jury found him not guilty of three other counts of second-degree sexual abuse. Spahr has been jailed since his conviction and has mounted several appeals, ultimately finding success on one his final appeal opportunities.
Spahr was accused of sexually abusing two girls from 2003-2010. At the time of the abuse, both girls were under the age of 12 and were living in the same home as he and his wife. Spahr was initially charged in 2012.
Spahr appealed his conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals. In 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed Spahr’s conviction but preserved a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for post-conviction proceedings. The claim dealt with testimony offered by then-Mahaska County Deputy Don DeKock, who investigated the allegations against Spahr and ultimately testified to his work in the trial. DeKock testified that he visited with the mother of the girls, Spahr’s wife, and when explaining the allegations to her, DeKock testified that he had gotten the impression that the mother did not believe her children and their allegations. Additionally, DeKock testimony implied that he believed the girls over the mother. Because DeKock was considered an expert witness, based on his years of training and work in sex abuse crimes, this testimony could be considered inadmissible. However, Spahr’s attorney, public defender Ken Duker, did not object to the testimony. The Court of Appeals ruled in 2015 that Spahr’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel should be preserved for post-conviction proceedings, as the record was not clear as to Duker’s actions.
“DeKock’s testimony and action taken clearly imply he did not believe Christine and did believe the girls. Trial counsel did not object to DeKock’s testimony but whether trial counsel had a reason for not doing so cannot be determined,” the Court wrote in their 2015 ruling.
Spahr filed a petition for post-conviction relief in August 2015, alleging 11 separate grounds for post-conviction relief. An April 2017 ruling by Judge Myron Gookin later pared those grounds for post-conviction relief down to one single count of ineffective assistance of counsel, relating to the testimony by DeKock. A one-day post-conviction relief trial was held before Judge Randy DeGeest in September 2017. DeGeest later ruled in October 2017 that Spahr had not received ineffective assistance of counsel, ruling that he did not believe the testimony offered by DeKock was inadmissible.
“This Court finds that DeKock’s testimony was at best borderline bolstering. In Dudley, an expert testified that the expert believed the victim was telling the truth. Id. at 678. Deputy DeKock made no such statement. His statements were couched in terms of State law required him to make a report to DHS because of the named perpetrator was a stepfather,” DeGeest wrote in his 2017 ruling.
DeGeest also wrote at that time that even if the testimony had been thrown out, it would not have changed the outcome of the trial.
“…Applicant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the outcome of the trial would have been different even if Duker had objected and kept DeKock’s testimony from the jury. Kenneth Duker’s strategy and implementation of the strategy was so successful that in three of the four counts, his client was found not guilty,” DeGeest wrote.
In a February 20 ruling, the Court of Appeals unanimously disagreed with DeGeest’s analysis. Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Richard Doyle noted that DeKock first became aware of the allegations when the victim approached him and a teacher at Oskaloosa High School after a lab they co-taught together and recounted the alleged abuse. Doyle noted that DeKock testified he was “not surprised” by the allegation and that he could sense something was off with the student. However, Doyle wrote that the panel found that DeKock could be qualified as an expert based on his years of experience and training in child sex crimes. The result, Doyle wrote, is that the “expert testimony” DeKock offered vouched for the credibility of the alleged victim, testimony that is inadmissible in Iowa Courts.
“Deputy DeKock’s testimony that he was not surprised by A.L.’s sexual- abuse allegation because he could ‘see something [was] not right’ with A.L. intimated that the deputy had some ability to discern whether a child had experienced trauma consistent with sexual abuse and that A.L. appeared to him to be someone who had experienced such trauma. This testimony indirectly lends credence to A.L.’s claims, bolstering her credibility,” Doyle wrote.
Doyle further writes that DeKock testified in another instance that after conducting an interview of the mother of the children and observing interviews with the two girls, there was concern for the children’s safety, and they were removed from their mother’s home and placed into foster care.
“This testimony also indirectly vouched for A.L.’s credibility,” Doyle writes.
While the court of appeals agreed that the testimony was inadmissible, Doyle noted in the ruling that it was necessary to determine if Spahr’s attorney had provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to the testimony. Doyle wrote that since Spahr’s attorney acknowledged during the post-conviction trial that he could not find a reason for not objecting to the testimony, his attorney had breached a duty.
In order to succeed on ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Doyle wrote that Spahr must also show that the breach of duty prejudiced Spahr to the point that the result of the trial likely would have been different, had the testimony not been allowed. Doyle wrote that prejudice had been established. Doyle noted that there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse presented by the prosecution at the state, leading the case to become a witness-credibility issue for the jury to decide. Doyle wrote that the testimony of the alleged victims often differed.
“The only evidence supporting a finding of guilt was the testimony of A.L. and R.L. Their statements in interviews, depositions, and at trial were often inconsistent,” Doyle wrote.
As a result of this, Doyle wrote that DeKock’s testimony vouching for the credibility of one of the witnesses may have tipped the scales, resulting in prejudice.
“Because witness credibility played an integral part in the jury’s decision-making, the impermissible testimony of Deputy DeKock that bolstered A.L.’s credibility undermines confidence in the verdict. Prejudice has been established,” wrote Doyle.
As a result of the findings, the Court of Appeals reversed DeGeest’s post-conviction relief decision and ordered that the case be remanded back to the district court for an order to be entered vacating Spahr’s conviction and that Spahr be granted a new trial on one count of second-degree sexual abuse.
What’s next for the case? The state could file a request for further review. This is a petition that the Supreme Court would consider. These requests are common, however the Supreme Court grants very few requests for further review. If further review is granted, the Court of Appeals’ decision would be reviewed by the Iowa Supreme Court, where it could be affirmed or reversed. If a petition for further review is denied, once a procedendo (a writ ordering a lower court to execute a decision of a higher court) is issued, the state would have 90 days to bring Spahr to trial, unless he waives the right. The state could also choose not to bring Spahr to trial, which would result in his release from custody.
Alternatively, the state could decide not to file a request for further review and instead retry Spahr on one count of second-degree sexual abuse. The state could also opt not to retry Spahr at all.
As of press time, online court records did not indicate that a request for further review had been filed.
