State of Iowa v. Casey Frederiksen, 15-0844

Background

In July 2005 five-year-old E.M., left in the care of her mother’s boyfriend, Casey Frederiksen, disappeared and was later found dead in the Cedar River with traumatic and genital injuries consistent with sexual assault.
Frederiksen lived in the apartment, was the children’s caretaker overnight, and gave varying accounts to investigators about the night of the disappearance.
Bloodhounds alerted to both E.M.’s and Frederiksen’s scent on property (Kamm’s) adjacent to an accessible riverbank; scent did not link Randy Patrie to that property.
A seized hard drive belonging to Frederiksen contained numerous child‑pornography images and videos depicting children roughly the victim’s age; Frederiksen later pleaded guilty in federal court to possession of child pornography.
Witnesses (a fellow inmate) testified Frederiksen admitted sexual contact with E.M.; Frederiksen also made statements to FBI agents admitting sexual arousal to young‑child pornography and masturbating the night E.M. disappeared.
Frederiksen was tried (venue changed) and convicted by a jury in 2015 of first‑degree murder and first‑degree sexual assault; he appealed claiming (1) insufficient evidence identifying him as the perpetrator, (2) erroneous exclusion of certain out‑of‑court statements attributed to Patrie, and (3) erroneous admission of evidence of child pornography.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Frederiksen)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence identifying defendant as perpetrator	Evidence viewed in totality — motive (sexual attraction), opportunity, bloodhound links to Kamm property, possession of child pornography, inconsistent statements, inmate confessions — supports conviction	Evidence was circumstantial and weak: narrow time window, questionable dog evidence, unreliable inmate testimony, and admissions of sexual arousal do not prove he committed the crimes	Affirmed: record contains substantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Exclusion of out‑of‑court statements attributed to Randy Patrie	Exclusion proper because statements were hearsay or implied assertions; allowing them risked jury using them for truth	Statements were offered not for truth but to show Patrie’s deception/awareness and shift blame; exclusion deprived defense of key impeachment/defensive evidence	Harmless error if exclusion improper: district court’s exclusion affirmed on harmless‑error analysis; alternative means allowed to probe Patrie’s conduct
Admission of defendant’s possession of child pornography (other‑acts evidence)	Admissible under Rule 5.404(b) to prove identity: images were "strikingly similar" to the assault on a child of same age; trial court limited scope and gave limiting instruction	Evidence impermissibly showed propensity, was unfairly prejudicial, and the probative value did not outweigh prejudice	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion — evidence relevant to identity, clear proof of the bad act existed, and probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice (court limited presentation)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (framework for admitting other‑acts child‑pornography evidence to prove identity when content is strikingly similar)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (standards for admissibility of hearsay and review of limine rulings)
State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2003) (doctrine of implied assertion in hearsay analysis)
State v. Elliott, 806 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 2011) (analyzing purpose for offered testimony and hearsay/nonhearsay distinctions)
State v. Blair, 347 N.W.2d 416 (Iowa 1984) (jury’s role in assessing witness credibility and weight of evidence)