State of Iowa v. Leroy Daniel Kula Jr., 16-0737

Background

Defendant Leroy Kula was tried by the court (bench trial) and convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor based on events in 2014 involving victims J.K., S.K., and L.R.
Police executed a search warrant at Kula’s home and seized over 200 videotapes/DVDs; Deputy Davis testified about recordings showing minors (including L.R.) undressing, Kula appearing and interacting with children, and at least one tape showing Kula committing a sex act with a minor. The actual videos were not admitted at trial.
Victims J.K. and S.K. testified (via closed-circuit) about sexual contacts and S.K. reported Kula photographed her genitals; L.R. testified in court that Kula had sex with her though she could not recall specifics.
Kula objected under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(b) to Deputy Davis’s testimony about other videotaped incidents (prior bad acts), arguing it was improper propensity evidence; defense also argued identity could be placed at issue because Kula’s teenage son lived in the house and might have made recordings.
The district court admitted limited testimony about the other recordings for purposes of identity, intent, absence of mistake, and knowledge; Kula was convicted on all counts and sentenced to consecutive and concurrent terms; the court also considered the videotaping pattern when imposing sentence.
On appeal, Kula argued (1) erroneous admission of prior bad-acts evidence and (2) improper consideration of unproven crimes at sentencing; he also raised pro se ineffective-assistance claims reserved for postconviction relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior bad-acts testimony under Iowa R. Evid. 5.404(b)	State: testimony about seized videos was admissible to prove identity, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake; limited testimony and bench trial minimized prejudice.	Kula: testimony described other crimes and was improper propensity evidence, barred by Rule 5.404(b).	Court: Admitted testimony was relevant, proved by clear proof, and probative value outweighed unfair prejudice; no abuse of discretion.
Whether testimony satisfied the three-step Putman test (relevance, clear proof, balancing)	State: tapes showed similar exploitative conduct across locations, bearing on identity and intent.	Kula: prior acts were distinct charges and should not be used to infer guilt here.	Court: evidence was relevant to disputed identity/intent, Deputy Davis’s ID testimony provided clear proof, and Rule 5.403 balance favored admission.
Use of unproven/uncharged videotaping at sentencing	State: the videotaping was proven at trial (through admissible testimony) and therefore properly considered.	Kula: court improperly relied on unprosecuted/unproven offenses in sentencing.	Court: district court may consider uncharged acts if proved by the record; these acts were proven by testimony and permissibly considered.
Ineffective-assistance and other pro se claims	N/A (State had no final argument on preserved postconviction relief)	Kula: alleged trial counsel ineffectiveness and other errors not preserved or outside record.	Court: ineffective-assistance claims reserved for postconviction proceedings; other new claims not considered on direct appeal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (propensity evidence and identity issues under Iowa Constitution and evidentiary rules)
State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (three-step test for admitting other-acts evidence)
State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2004) (clear-proof standard for prior-act proof)
State v. Richards, 879 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2016) (victim testimony can satisfy clear-proof requirement)
State v. Casteneda, 621 N.W.2d 435 (Iowa 2001) (limiting use of other-act evidence to non-propensity purposes)
State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2004) (probative value vs. unfair prejudice analysis)
State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2001) (sentencing: limitations on considering unproven offenses)
State v. Longo, 608 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 2000) (sentencing may consider other criminal activity if record establishes it)
State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims may require postconviction relief)
State v. Scalise, 660 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2003) (issues raised first on appeal ordinarily not considered)