In Re Detention of Keith Adams, 15-1539

Background

Keith Adams had 11 convictions for indecent exposure, six victims aged 9–13; State sought civil commitment under Iowa Code ch. 229A as a sexually violent predator (SVP).
A jury found Adams an SVP and the district court ordered civil commitment; Adams appeals challenging the trial court’s rulings and sufficiency of evidence.
Key expert: Dr. Anna Salter testified Adams suffers from exhibitionist disorder, pedophilia, and an other personality disorder with features of antisocial personality disorder, and opined he was likely to reoffend.
Contested trial events: (1) Dr. Salter was asked whether she often concludes a person does not meet SVP criteria and testified she says “no more than I say,” and that she doesn’t testify when she says no; defense moved for mistrial under In re Detention of Stenzel. (2) Dr. Salter updated her opinion at trial to include the deceitfulness criterion for antisocial features based on new information; the State failed to disclose that update before trial, leading defense to move for mistrial.
The district court denied both mistrial motions, struck the deceitfulness testimony and instructed the jury to disregard it; the jury nevertheless convicted and the court committed Adams.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Adams)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a mistrial was required after expert testified she often says “no” and doesn’t testify when she says no (purportedly implying a screening imprimatur)	Testimony violated Stenzel by implying a rigorous screening/selection process and unduly influencing the jury	Testimony did not describe the screening process or confer an imprimatur; it showed expert objectivity and had independent relevance	Court: No abuse of discretion; testimony distinguishable from Stenzel and not prejudicial
Whether a mistrial was required for the State’s nondisclosure of the expert’s updated opinion on deceitfulness (antisocial criterion)	Nondisclosure prejudiced Adams and warranted mistrial	State’s nondisclosure was remedied by excluding the testimony and instructing jury; no mistrial needed	Court: Issue waived for inadequate appellate briefing; trial court excluded the evidence and denied mistrial
Whether expert opinion and actuarial tools provided insufficient proof of likelihood to reoffend (less than 50% in models)	Actuarial scores show <50% chance of being caught reoffending, so insufficient to prove >50% likelihood of reoffense; expert failed to account properly for Adams’ health prognosis	Actuarial scores measure likelihood of being caught (underestimate actual reoffense); dynamic factors and expert testimony supported likelihood; expert considered health issues	Court: Substantial evidence supports verdict; actuarial limitations and dynamic factors permit finding more likely than not to reoffend
Whether Adams’ cancer diagnosis undermined the State’s evidence of future dangerousness	Shortened life expectancy and treatment effects make actuarial models inapplicable and reduce reoffense risk	Expert considered medical condition; testimony could support either mitigation or aggravation; jury decides credibility	Court: Medical condition did not negate substantial evidence; jury could infer condition was an exacerbating factor

Key Cases Cited

In re Detention of Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d 690 (Iowa 2013) (expert testimony about pretrial screening process can unduly influence jury and require new trial)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (standard for granting a mistrial)
In re Det. of Barnes, 658 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2003) (definition of mental abnormality in SVP statute requires serious difficulty controlling behavior)
In re Det. of Altman, 723 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 2006) (standard for sufficiency of evidence in SVP commitment)
Easton v. Howard, 751 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2008) (appellate review standard for correction of errors at law)