Bruce Marcel Braggs, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
16-0567
| Iowa Ct. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Braggs was convicted by a jury of first-degree burglary and second-degree sexual abuse; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, newly discovered evidence, and insufficiency of evidence; the district court denied relief.
- At trial the victim had her face covered and saw only the assailant’s eyes; she did not view a photo lineup but identified Braggs at trial two years later.
- Two roommates were eyewitnesses: one failed to identify anyone from photos; the other selected Braggs from a photo lineup but was only ~75% certain.
- Significant non-eyewitness evidence (DNA testing, discarded clothing, circumstantial evidence, and a footprint) supported the jury’s verdict and were emphasized by the PCR court.
- PCR claims focused on (1) trial counsel’s failure to call an expert on eyewitness identification reliability and (2) appellate counsel’s failure to challenge (a) admission of rebuttal testimony by the State’s DCI chemist and (b) alleged prosecutorial vouching in closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial counsel ineffective for not calling expert on eyewitness ID | Braggs: an expert on lineup/eyewitness reliability would have undermined identifications and changed outcome | Trial counsel: strategic choice; counsel cross-examined vigorously and relied on other defense evidence | Court: No breach or prejudice; decision was reasonable and outcome unlikely to change |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging admission of rebuttal testimony | Braggs: trial court improperly allowed Dr. Pollpeter to be recalled to rebut defense contamination theory | State: rebuttal properly limited to controverting defense expert; trial court has discretion | Court: No clear abuse of discretion; appellate counsel not ineffective |
| Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising prosecutorial vouching claim | Braggs: prosecutor vouched for victim’s credibility in closing, warranting reversal | State: prosecutor’s comments were responsive, argued reasonable inferences, not personal vouching | Court: Closing was responsive, not improper vouching; no prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Sufficiency/new-evidence/general PCR relief | Braggs: various grounds including newly discovered evidence and insufficient evidence | State: evidence (DNA, clothing, footprint, circumstantial) supports verdict | Court: PCR denied; Braggs failed to show deficient representation or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-part test)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (strategic decisions after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
- Osborn v. State, 573 N.W.2d 917 (tactical decisions immune from later attack)
- Carolan v. Hill, 553 N.W.2d 882 (trial court discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence)
- State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (standards for evaluating prosecutorial vouching and prejudice)