State of Iowa v. Bradley Elroy Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554

Background

In 2015 Bradley Wickes, a 36-year-old high school teacher and faculty sponsor, exchanged extensive Facebook Messenger communications with A.S., a 17‑year‑old student, and hugged her frequently at school and at events.
Over ~45 days they exchanged thousands of messages (court considered >638 pages), many expressing Wickes’s marital sexual frustrations, his attraction to A.S., sexualized descriptions of her body, and a desire for intimacy and relationship.
Two photographs show close full‑frontal embraces at a prehomecoming bonfire and the homecoming dance; they also met to hug in a Walmart parking lot.
Wickes admitted the messages became flirty and described the relationship as like ‘‘boyfriend and girlfriend’’; school officials placed him on leave and he later resigned.
Charged under Iowa Code § 709.15(3)(a)(1) and (5)(a) for sexual exploitation by a school employee (pattern/scheme to engage in sexual conduct), Wickes waived jury, was convicted at bench trial, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment plus special sentence, and appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wickes)	Held
Whether hugs constituted “sexual conduct” under Iowa Code § 709.15(3)(a)(2)	Hugs, together with messages and photos, were sexual conduct because they were done for Wickes’s sexual gratification and must be assessed by totality of circumstances	Hugs were brief, comforting, nonsexual acts akin to reassurance and therefore not criminal sexual conduct	Held: Hugs can constitute sexual conduct under §709.15(3)(a)(2) when context (messages, photos, grooming, sexualized commentary) shows they were for sexual gratification; conviction affirmed
Whether evidence proved a “pattern, practice, or scheme” under §709.15(3)(a)(1)	The repeated messages, hugs, photographs, and grooming over 45 days demonstrate a scheme to engage in sexual conduct with the student	A single victim and limited time period cannot constitute a pattern/scheme; statute ambiguous or illogical to treat scheme more severely than single act	Held: Statute plain — a scheme need not involve multiple victims or long duration; substantial evidence supports a pattern/scheme conviction
Whether district court applied proper standard in denying new trial	District court weighed evidence and found it supported verdict	Wickes argued the court applied sufficiency rather than weight‑of‑evidence standard and failed to reassess credibility	Held: No error; bench trial court considered credibility and weighed evidence properly when denying new trial
Sentencing discretion and Eighth Amendment challenge	Sentence within statutory range; legislative judgment supports felony classification and term; not grossly disproportionate given abuse of trust and harm to victim	Wickes argued sentencing options (deferred/suspended) were available and five years is cruel and unusual as‑applied because conduct was only hugs	Held: §907.3 excludes probationary options for mandatory reporters in chapter 709 offenses against minors; statute unambiguous and sentence not grossly disproportionate — Eighth Amendment claim rejected

Key Cases Cited

State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2013) (statute’s “sexual conduct” construed broadly; sexual exploitation can occur absent physical contact when viewed in context)
Smith v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 755 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 2008) (identical statutory language in related statute requires examination of totality of circumstances to determine whether conduct was sexual)
State v. Ramirez, 895 N.W.2d 884 (Iowa 2017) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693 (Iowa 2016) (sufficiency review principles)
State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (framework for as‑applied Eighth Amendment disproportionate‑sentence analysis)
State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2012) (discussion of threshold for gross disproportionality and deference to legislative sentencing choices)