State of Iowa v. James Dean Arneson, 16-0808

Background

Defendant James Arneson was convicted by a jury of two counts of third-degree sexual abuse for sex acts committed against a 14-year-old child (K.L.).
Count I alleged a sex act performed by force/against the victim’s will; Count II alleged a sex act with a 14- or 15-year-old where defendant was 4+ years older and not cohabiting as spouses.
Evidence included K.L.’s testimony (she identified Arneson and described hand-to-genital contact), a nurse’s testimony recounting K.L.’s statement that Arneson licked her genitals, and a contemporaneous medical report corroborating that statement.
At trial a police officer recounted K.L.’s statement to her mother; defense objected as hearsay and argued the officer vouched for the victim. The court admitted the testimony but the court and jury also heard K.L.’s own testimony.
Before charges, Arneson voluntarily went to the police station for an interview, was told he was free to leave, and provided a DNA sample; he later moved to suppress the interview and DNA on Sixth Amendment and state-constitutional grounds.
Arneson also asserted ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to litigate suppression under Fourth and Fifth Amendment/state-constitutional claims; the court preserved that claim for postconviction relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — sex act element (both counts)	State: nurse testimony and medical report corroborate K.L.’s account of oral and digital-genital contact.	Arneson: insufficient evidence of any sex act; verdicts were general/alternative so must support all theories.	Court: Substantial evidence supports both sex acts (finger-to-vagina and oral contact); verdicts were separate, not alternative. Affirmed.
Sufficiency — age-disparity element (count II)	State: jury could reasonably deduce Arneson was 4+ years older given victim’s age testimony and defendant’s presence in courtroom.	Arneson: insufficient evidence to prove the 4-year age gap; untimely motion preserved?	Court: Error preservation satisfied by district court ruling; substantial evidence supports age-disparity based on testimony and observation. Affirmed.
Hearsay and vouching (officer recounting victim’s statement)	State: officer’s testimony explained responsive conduct; statements about victim’s demeanor not improper vouching.	Arneson: officer recitation was hearsay and improperly vouched for victim, prejudicing the jury.	Court: officer’s recounting was hearsay but cumulative of victim’s own testimony, so admission was harmless; prosecutor did not pursue improper vouching. No reversible error.
Suppression — right to counsel under Iowa Constitution	State: interview was voluntary, noncustodial, no charges filed; under Green the state-constitutional right to counsel did not attach.	Arneson: under Iowa Constitution article I, §10 right to counsel should attach when suspect asks for attorney during interrogation even pre-charge.	Court: Green controls — no attachment of right to counsel here; interview was voluntary and noncustodial. Suppression denied; counsel-ineffective claim preserved for PCR.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hogrefe, 557 N.W.2d 871 (discussing general verdicts and alternative theories)
State v. Shorter, 893 N.W.2d 65 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670 (jury credibility determinations)
State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801 (limits on hearsay offered to explain conduct)
State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631 (distinguishing hearsay offered for truth)
State v. Green, 896 N.W.2d 770 (Iowa Constitution right to counsel does not attach during voluntary precharge interviews)
Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only to charged offenses)
State v. Brown, 856 N.W.2d 685 (expert testimony vouching for child’s credibility can be prejudicial)