State of Iowa v. Kevin Jon Thoren, 970 N.W.2d 611

Kevin Thoren voluntarily surrendered his massage license after an Iowa Board of Massage Therapy investigation into multiple complaints by former clients; the surrender contained no admission of guilt.
Thoren continued offering Reiki and craniosacral therapy (clients clothed); L.R. alleged that during a Reiki session Thoren rubbed her vaginal area over her clothes; Thoren denied touching below the navel and defended that L.R. experienced “phantom touches.”
Prosecutors opened trial with Board investigative materials and called five former massage clients to testify about inappropriate touching; Thoren was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse.
At trial Thoren objected to the Board report; he had moved in limine to exclude both the Board evidence and prior-client testimony; the district court issued a broad pretrial ruling admitting the prior-acts testimony.
On review the Iowa Supreme Court held (1) evidence of the Board’s investigation and settlement was inadmissible because its minimal probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and risk of juror deference to an administrative imprimatur; and (2) some prior-client testimony was admissible narrowly to rebut the defense that the victim was mistaken (phantom touches), but other testimony exceeded the permissible scope and the court failed to limit use, necessitating reversal and a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Board investigation/settlement evidence	Relevant to show license surrender, bolster credibility of prior complainants, motive/modus operandi, and consciousness of guilt	Irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; different/administrative standards make it misleading; settlement not admission	Excluded: Board materials had minimal probative value and high risk of unfair prejudice/imprimatur effect; introduction was error requiring new trial
Admission of testimony from prior clients (5 witnesses) under rule 5.404(b)	Admissible to prove motive, intent, lack of accident/mistake, modus operandi, and to rebut phantom-touch defense	Prohibited propensity evidence; irrelevant except to show bad character; some testimony went beyond purposes asserted	Partial affirmance: testimony from three prior clients admissible narrowly to rebut victim’s mistake theory; testimony from two witnesses (S.T., M.L.) and other overbroad uses were improper; court failed to identify/limit purposes and State’s closing urged forbidden propensity use, so error was not harmless; new trial ordered

State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2004) (rule 5.404(b) is a rule of exclusion; prosecution must articulate noncharacter purpose)
State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (statutory allowance of propensity evidence in sexual-abuse cases is limited by due-process concerns; prior acts admissible only under 5.404(b))
State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (three-part test for other-acts evidence: disputed legitimate issue, clear proof, and 5.403 balancing)
State v. Huston, 825 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 2013) (danger that administrative findings will unfairly influence juries; such agency determinations risk substituting for jury factfinding)
State v. Richards, 879 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2016) (victim testimony can satisfy clear-proof requirement for prior-act evidence)
State v. Allen, 565 N.W.2d 333 (Iowa 1997) (prior client testimony admissible to show pattern/scheme when statute required proof of a pattern or practice)
State v. Mitchell, 633 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 2001) (prior bad-acts evidence may not be admitted solely to bolster victim credibility)
State v. Reynolds, 765 N.W.2d 283 (Iowa 2009) (rulings on motions in limine that resolve admissibility finally preserve error; admissibility often depends on trial context)