State of Iowa v. David R. Desimone
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 119
| Iowa | 2013Background
- David DeSimone was convicted in 2005 of third-degree sexual abuse; conviction affirmed on appeal and he was sentenced to prison.
- He obtained postconviction relief in 2011 when this Court vacated his conviction based on a Brady violation and ordered a new trial; a retrial in 2012 resulted in acquittal.
- After acquittal, DeSimone filed for a judicial determination that he was a "wrongfully imprisoned person" under Iowa Code § 663A.1 and sought the predicate finding of actual innocence under § 663A.1(2).
- At the wrongful imprisonment hearing DeSimone presented: (1) State admissions (from requests for admission) showing lack of physical evidence, and (2) his own testimony. The State offered no live witnesses and sought only judicial notice of the prior criminal file; DeSimone objected to admitting prior trial transcripts absent a showing of witness unavailability.
- The district court excluded prior criminal trial testimony as hearsay, found DeSimone credible, and concluded by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit the offense; it therefore declared him a wrongfully imprisoned person.
- The State appealed arguing (1) an acquittal on retrial cannot support a wrongful imprisonment claim, (2) the district court erred by excluding prior trial testimony, and (3) the evidence did not substantially support a finding of actual innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeSimone) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an acquittal on retrial after a vacatur can satisfy § 663A.1(1)(d) (eligibility) | A vacatur/reversal plus later termination of proceedings satisfies the statute; retrial and acquittal do not bar § 663A.1 relief | An acquittal following reversal means the earlier order was not "in a case for which no further proceedings can be or will be held," so claimant is ineligible | Court: Eligible—statute allows a vacatur and later termination (including after an unsuccessful retrial); reading should not depend on prosecutor's decision to retry |
| Whether district court may consider prior criminal-trial testimony without showing witnesses are unavailable (hearsay/former testimony) | District court should be able to rely on the existing record (including prior testimony); parties may also present additional evidence | Prior trial testimony is hearsay unless State shows witness unavailability under former-testimony exception | Court: Prior criminal trial testimony may be considered; parties may introduce additional admissible evidence; unavailability need not be shown for court to review the existing record |
| Whether the court’s § 663A.1(2) finding of actual innocence was supported by substantial evidence on the record before it | DeSimone relied on State admissions and his testimony; district court found him credible and concluded no serious doubt remained about his involvement | State argued the record (including prior trial testimony) undermines the innocence finding and that substantial evidence is lacking | Court: There was substantial evidence on the record before the district court to support its finding, but remand is required so the court can reconsider that finding after reviewing the prior trial transcripts |
| Proper remedy on appeal | Affirm the eligibility and innocence finding | Reverse and deny relief or require consideration of prior trial record | Court: Reverse the exclusionary ruling, affirm eligibility, and remand for the district court to reconsider § 663A.1(2) using the complete record (including prior testimony) |
Key Cases Cited
- DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2011) (vacating DeSimone’s original conviction on Brady grounds)
- McCoy v. State, 742 N.W.2d 593 (Iowa 2007) (discussing § 663A.1(2) as a predicate determination permitting a civil action)
- Dohlman v. State, 725 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 2006) (interpreting requirements for wrongful imprisonment determination)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1989) (allowing wrongful imprisonment claims after acquittal on retrial)