State of Iowa v. Mark Wesley Brown, 15-2002

In May 2013 police investigated an allegation that Mark Brown sexually abused a minor; police executed a warrant at Brown’s residence and seized computer equipment allegedly used to show pornography to the victim.
Officers located Brown on the street, asked him to accompany them to city hall, read Miranda rights, and obtained a written waiver; the subsequent interview was video recorded.
About eighty minutes into the interview, after being shown the warrant, Brown asked, “Can I get a lawyer?” An officer replied “Sure,” then asked if Brown wanted to continue; Brown said they could continue and largely denied the allegations while also engaging in unrelated small talk.
The State charged Brown with second-degree sexual abuse; at a bench trial the court admitted the interview video and found the victim credible and Brown not credible, convicting him.
Brown moved for a new trial claiming improper admission of statements; the district court denied the motion but applied the sufficiency (Robinson) standard and stated it believed the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.
On appeal Brown argued ineffective assistance for failure to suppress/post-object to post-invocation statements and that the district court applied the wrong standard on the new-trial motion; the Court of Appeals affirms conviction conditionally, rejects ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice, vacates the new-trial ruling, and remands to apply the proper weight-of-the-evidence standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress or objecting to statements after Brown mentioned a lawyer	Counsel was not ineffective because Brown’s mention of a lawyer was equivocal and officers were not required to clarify; alternatively, any error was not prejudicial	Brown argued his statement constituted an invocation of right to counsel (unequivocal or at least equivocal requiring clarifying questions), so subsequent statements should be suppressed	Assuming without deciding counsel erred, court finds no prejudice: victim credibility and other evidence made a different outcome unlikely; ineffective-assistance claim denied
Whether district court applied correct standard in ruling on motion for a new trial	State agreed remand required because the district court used Robinson (sufficiency) standard	Brown argued the court should have applied the weight-of-the-evidence standard for new-trial motions	Court held district court applied wrong standard (Robinson); vacated ruling on new-trial motion and remanded to apply Ellis weight-of-evidence standard

Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
Maxwell v. State, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: duty and prejudice)
Bowman v. State, 710 N.W.2d 200 (Iowa 2006) (definition of reasonable probability for prejudice prong)
State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 1980) (substantial-evidence/sufficiency review standard)
State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998) (proper weight-of-the-evidence standard for motions for new trial)
State v. Root, 801 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (remand required when district court uses incorrect standard on post-trial motion)