State of Iowa v. Brent Michael Romer, 2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 68

Romer was a licensed Iowa teacher who taught elementary school for Cumberland and Massena from 2004 to 2008 and also taught as a substitute in Corning; he resided in Corning.
He was charged with five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of sexual exploitation by a school employee under Iowa Code 709.15(3)(a) and (6) and 709.15(5)(a) based on three events involving Corning students; none of the students were in a current teacher-student relationship with Romer.
The first event involved a sexual relationship with R.A. beginning before she turned 16 and continuing until she was 18, initiated via MySpace.
The second event (November 2007) involved K.G. and L.A., where Romer babysat the girls, directed them to pose, and photographed them in sexually explicit poses.
The third event (July 4, 2008) involved N.S. and L.A. at a party where intoxication occurred and Romer photographed the minors in sexualized poses, with other adults also in some photos.
Romer moved to bifurcate the offenses and later sought severance; the district court denied; Romer was convicted on all counts; the court of appeals affirmed; the supreme court granted review and affirmed the appellate ruling and convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is a contemporaneous teacher-student relationship required under 709.15(3)?	Romer argues no such relationship is needed.	Romer contends a direct teacher-student relationship is required.	No; the statute targets school employees broadly, not only those with current relationships.
Must sexual conduct under 709.15(3) involve physical contact with KG and LA?	Romer argues there was no physical sexual conduct with KG or LA.	State argues conduct can be sexual without physical contact.	Yes; orchestrating and photographing sexual conduct between minors satisfies the statute without requiring physical contact.
Was the district court correct to deny severance of counts?	Romer claims prejudice from joinder.	State argues joinder was appropriate for judicial economy.	No abuse of discretion; joinder was proper due to a common scheme or plan and minimized prejudice outweighing judicial economy.

In re Estate of Bockwoldt, 814 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 2012) (statutory interpretation; consider statute context and intent)
State v. Adams, 810 N.W.2d 365 (Iowa 2012) (strict construction of criminal statutes with doubts in favor of the accused)
State v. Elston, 735 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 2007) (joinder of offenses; abuse of discretion; balancing prejudice and economy)
State v. Lam, 391 N.W.2d 245 (Iowa 1986) (common scheme or plan joinder framework; continuing motive)
State v. Muhlenbruch, 728 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2007) (strict construction principles applied in ambiguous criminal statutes when appropriate)
Smith v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 755 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 2008) (expands understanding of 'sexual conduct' beyond explicit contact in caretaker contexts)