Robert Gerald Hoose v. State of Iowa, 20-0856

In May 2010 D.H., a minor, accused her father Robert Hoose of repeated sexual abuse; she gave a detailed disclosure at a child protection center and later testified at trial.
In April 2013 a jury convicted Hoose of multiple counts of sexual abuse; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Hoose filed postconviction-relief (PCR) claims that trial counsel were ineffective for (1) failing to call J.P., who later swore D.H. recanted, and (2) failing to object to foundation for State expert Dr. Anna Salter’s testimony; he also claimed newly discovered evidence (J.P. and Ashburn family statements) warranted a new trial.
At the PCR hearing J.P. and two Ashburn witnesses testified that D.H. said the allegations were untrue or that ‘‘voices’’ told her to make them; D.H. denied any recantation and reaffirmed her trial testimony.
The PCR court found Hoose not credible that he informed counsel pretrial about J.P., found counsel’s decisions (including not objecting to expert foundation) were strategic and reasonable, and concluded the later statements were merely impeaching and would not have changed the verdict.
The appellate court affirmed: counsel were not ineffective and the newly discovered evidence claim failed the high standard for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to call J.P.	Hoose: counsel were told pretrial of J.P.’s claim that D.H. recanted and should have called her to impeach D.H.	State/defense: counsel had no knowledge of J.P.’s claim; Hoose’s claim he informed counsel was not credible.	No breach of duty; counsel unaware, credibility finding supported; no ineffectiveness.
Failure to object to expert foundation	Hoose: counsel should have objected because State didn’t lay foundation that studies/data were reasonably relied upon by experts.	Defense: strategic choice to avoid bolstering expert; counsel believed expert had credentials and could provide foundation if pressed.	Counsel’s strategic decision was reasonable; no ineffective assistance.
Newly discovered evidence (recantation)	Hoose: J.P.’s affidavit and Ashburn testimony showing D.H. recanted are new, material, and would likely change the verdict.	State: statements are impeachment/cumulative, D.H. denied recanting, and overall evidence (compromising bedroom incident, Hoose’s testimony) makes a different verdict unlikely.	Evidence is merely impeaching/cumulative and fails the high standard to entitle Hoose to a new trial.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (credibility findings in PCR given weight on appeal)
More v. State, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016) (standards for newly discovered evidence in PCR and high burden to show verdict probably would differ)
State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372 (Iowa 2020) (objective measurement of counsel performance; strategic decisions not automatically deficient)
State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (expert testimony must be based on facts/data reasonably relied upon in the field)