Christopher John Simpson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1529

Background

Christopher Simpson was convicted by a jury of four counts of third-degree sexual abuse involving two teenage boys; this court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
Simpson filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application alleging trial counsel was ineffective for multiple failures, including not objecting to the State expert’s testimony and related closing argument, and other trial-evidence issues.
The State’s expert, Lana Herteen, testified about delayed disclosure, grooming behaviors (using hypotheticals mirroring the victims’ accounts), exposure to pornography, gift inducements, and a “core of truth” concept about victims’ ability to sustain falsehoods over time.
Trial counsel objected generally to the expert testimony but did not object to many specific questions or to the prosecutor’s closing argument that directly tied Herteen’s testimony to the victims’ credibility.
The district court denied PCR relief; on appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed only the ineffective-assistance claim for failing to object to impermissible vouching by the expert and related closing argument, found counsel breached an essential duty, and that prejudice under Strickland was established; it reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/vouching: Whether expert testimony impermissibly vouched for victims’ credibility	Simpson: Herteen’s testimony (esp. "core of truth"/coaching answers and hypotheticals mirroring the victims) improperly endorsed victims’ truthfulness and invaded the jury’s credibility role	State: Expert’s statistics and grooming testimony explained general phenomena (delayed reporting, grooming) and did not directly assess credibility; prosecutor’s closing merely tied permissible testimony to facts	Held: Herteen’s total testimony crossed the line into impermissible vouching (opining adolescents cannot sustain lies) and trial counsel had a duty to object
Ineffective assistance: Whether counsel breached duty by failing to object to expert vouching	Simpson: Counsel’s failure to object to elicited vouching and the prosecutor’s closing statements was deficient	State: Any errors were not prejudicial because of strong evidence of guilt and parts of the expert testimony were permissible	Held: Counsel breached an essential duty by not objecting; prejudice under Strickland was shown given the improper usurpation of the jury’s role
Prejudice under Strickland: Whether outcome would likely differ absent the errors	Simpson: Expert vouching was central to credibility and could have changed verdict	State: Evidence of guilt was overwhelming; any error harmless	Held: Prejudice established — the vouching created reasonable probability of a different result; PCR relief warranted
Preservation/procedural default: Whether the vouching objection was preserved for PCR appeal	Simpson: PCR counsel raised trial-counsel-ineffective claims; appellate counsel framed issue appropriately	State: District court did not expressly rule on admissibility claim; separate preservation argument in concurrence	Held: Majority treated claim as preserved and reached merits; concurrence noted preservation issues but concluded PCR counsel’s admitted oversight could be reviewed as ineffective assistance of PCR counsel and reached same relief

Key Cases Cited

State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986) (expert opinions on witness truthfulness are inadmissible)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Brown, 856 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 2014) (expert testimony implicitly vouching for victim’s credibility is improper)
State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 2014) (limits on expert testimony that equates symptoms/therapy with truthfulness)
State v. Jaquez, 856 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2014) (expert demeanor testimony that indirectly vouches for credibility is improper)
State v. Tracy, 482 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa 1992) (expert testimony stating low frequency of false allegations is improper)
State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1992) (expert testimony on delayed reporting generally admissible)
State v. Gettier, 438 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1989) (permissible expert testimony explaining general trauma-related behaviors vs. impermissible personalized credibility opinions)
State v. Pansegrau, 524 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (hypothetical mirroring the victim that personalizes expert opinion is impermissible)
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (strong evidence of guilt can negate Strickland prejudice in some contexts)