State of Iowa v. Ivan Fernando Fierro, 15-0684

Defendant Ivan Fierro was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse for contact with his adopted daughter (D.F.) occurring 2008–2010; trial occurred in December 2014.
D.F., then 15, testified she was touched on multiple occasions (bedroom, on top of washer/dryer, after shower) beginning in fourth grade through sixth grade; she described resisting due to fear and physical abuse by Fierro.
D.F. delayed reporting until 2013 after family mental-health contacts prompted a disclosure to her mother and the mother’s fiancé; DHS investigated and child protection interview occurred.
Pretrial limine rulings: State barred from mentioning prior arrests/convictions except on offers of proof; court allowed evidence of physical abuse toward family members for limited purpose (explaining delay/fear and rebutting fabrication claims).
At trial the court permitted limited questioning about Fierro’s past use of other names (credibility). Defense challenged admission of evidence about physical abuse and use of false names on appeal.
The court denied a new-trial motion based on weight of evidence, finding D.F.’s testimony consistent and credible and that defenses raised credibility issues for the jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Weight of the evidence	Conviction should stand; jury credibility determinations control	Fierro: verdict against the weight of evidence due to inconsistencies	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; evidence did not preponderate against verdict
Admission of evidence that defendant used other names	State: prior use of false names probative of credibility	Fierro: use of other names unfairly prejudicial	Affirmed — court properly allowed limited questions about other names for credibility
Admission of evidence of physical abuse of family members	State: such evidence explains victim’s delay/fear and rebuts fabrication claim	Fierro: prior bad acts irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Rule 5.403	Affirmed — relevant under state-of-mind exception; limited admission not an abuse of discretion
Timing and prejudice of prior-bad-acts testimony	State: any complaint about shifted balance not preserved; testimony fit defense strategy	Fierro: later testimony became more prejudicial; instruction insufficient	Affirmed — any timing error not prejudicial given defense strategy, limiting instruction, and presumption juries follow instructions

State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547 (Iowa 2006) (distinguishes weight-of-evidence review from sufficiency review)
State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2003) (appellate scope when reviewing weight-of-evidence rulings)
State v. Martinez, 621 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (use of false names probative of credibility)
United States v. Mansaw, 714 F.2d 785 (8th Cir. 1983) (false names/identities relevant to truthfulness)
State v. Alderman, 578 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (state-of-mind exception for child sexual-abuse cases)
State v. Bayles, 551 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 1996) (prior acts relevant to explain victim’s fear and delay in reporting)
State v. Fisher, 202 P.3d 937 (Wash. 2009) (physical abuse becomes relevant only if delay in reporting is made an issue)
State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34 (Iowa 2006) (admission of bad-acts evidence not prejudicial where it was central to defense strategy)
State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545 (Iowa 2010) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
State v. Plaster, 424 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1988) (limiting instructions are usually sufficient to cure prejudice)