James Randall Tyson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1158

Background

In 2010 nine-year-old D.B. alleged James Tyson touched her in Tyson’s kitchen and in his truck; a roommate child, Ashley, partly corroborated the kitchen incident but not the truck incident.
Tyson was tried twice: first trial ended in a hung jury; second trial (2012) resulted in conviction for second-degree sexual abuse but acquittal on a lascivious-acts count.
At retrial a forensic interviewer testified about child-reporting characteristics and, on cross-examination elicited by defense counsel, volunteered that she found D.B. "credible;" the State later elicited similar vouching on redirect.
During deliberations the jury sent questions; the court and counsel discussed supplemental instructions without Tyson present; the court’s written answer used the term "victim" and described "contact" in ways Tyson says assumed the fact of contact.
Tyson filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for (1) eliciting/failing to object to expert credibility-vouching, (2) failing to object to the supplemental jury instruction (including use of "victim"), and (3) failing to ensure Tyson’s meaningful participation in the jury-question process.
The PCR court denied relief; on de novo review the court of appeals reversed, holding cumulative errors deprived Tyson of a fair trial and remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting/failing to strike expert testimony vouching for child’s credibility	Tyson: counsel opened the door and failed to object/move to strike inadmissible credibility vouching, prejudicing the verdict	State/defense: counsel pursued reasonable trial strategy to impeach expert with deposition rather than spotlight the statement	Court: Counsel’s failure to object/move to strike was an ineffective tactic; elicited vouching was inadmissible and prejudicial (particularly when compounded by State redirect and closing)
Whether the supplemental jury instruction was improper and counsel ineffective for not objecting	Tyson: instruction conflated elements, assumed contact occurred, and improperly called D.B. a "victim"	State: instruction answered jury’s specific question and did not redefine elements	Court: instruction did not legally conflate elements but use of "victim" and phrasing implying contact were inappropriate; counsel should have objected; standing alone not dispositive but contributed to cumulative prejudice
Whether Tyson was denied the right to be present/meaningfully participate in jury-question discussions	Tyson: excluded from initial discussions; not given adequate time to review/consult before instruction issued	State: Tyson was later present when record was made and could have requested more time; no showing he asked	Court: no clear justification for initial absence but Tyson had opportunity to participate and did not request more time; this issue alone did not show prejudice
Whether cumulative effect of these errors requires relief	Tyson: combined errors undermined the verdict, especially given weak nonexpert evidence and prior hung jury	State: errors considered individually did not prejudice outcome	Court: cumulative effect raised reasonable doubt about verdict integrity; granted new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 2014) (expert testimony may not directly or indirectly comment on child-witness credibility)
State v. Jaquez, 856 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2014) (expert vouching for child witness is improper)
State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986) (credibility is for the jury, not expert witnesses)
Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151 (Iowa 2010) (defendant’s presence and counsel’s duty regarding jury-question proceedings)
State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (assess cumulative effect of counsel’s errors when evaluating prejudice)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1994) (factors relevant to determining whether contact is sexual in nature)
State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2017) (context matters for use of the term "victim" in court proceedings)