State of Iowa v. Michael William Tobin Jr., 23-2039

Michael Tobin, a former Iowa police officer, was convicted by a jury on eleven counts of sexual exploitation of a minor related to explicit images obtained during an investigation of online predator Cody Blue.
Tobin met and exploited C.T., a teenage victim in the Blue case, by developing a sexual relationship with her and showing her explicit images from an investigative file outside the scope of his official police duties.
The state’s main evidence was C.T.’s testimony about Tobin’s conduct, including his unauthorized display of images to her and soliciting explicit photos from her.
Tobin argued he acted within his law enforcement duties and challenged both the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions and the admission of certain trial evidence under evidentiary rules.
The appellate court affirmed some convictions, vacated others due to insufficient evidence, and remanded for resentencing, finding that not all counts were supported by substantial proof that Tobin’s conduct fell outside his official duties.

Issue	Tobin’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence proved Tobin acted outside scope of duty with images	Tobin argued he possessed/promoted images only in official capacity as police investigator.	State argued he used images for personal sexual motives, showing them to minors outside investigations.	Sufficient evidence showed Tobin acted outside official duties when displaying images to minors.
Sufficiency of evidence supporting 6/8 possession charges	Tobin contended only 2 of 8 explicit images were identified as shown to C.T.; thus, 6 counts lacked proof.	State argued access = possession; showing any images proved unlawful intent for all.	Evidence was insufficient for counts 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11; convictions on these vacated and acquittal ordered.
Admission of other bad acts testimony (Iowa R. Evid. 5.404(b))	Tobin said evidence of affair with C.G. was irrelevant, prejudicial character evidence.	State argued testimony showed intent and corroborated modus operandi.	Assuming error, admission was harmless given limiting instruction and cumulative evidence.
Exclusion of evidence about C.T.’s bisexuality (Iowa R. Evid. 5.412)	Tobin argued C.T.’s sexual orientation was relevant to motive in soliciting explicit photos.	State argued rape shield rule applies to all sexual misconduct victims, excluding this evidence.	District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion was proper under rape shield rule.

State v. Kieffer, 17 N.W.3d 651 (Iowa 2025) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence on appeal)
State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2006) (review standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Martin, 704 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 2005) (importance of limiting instructions for 404(b) evidence)
State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2001) (rule against admission of propensity evidence)
State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196 (Iowa 2008) (test for harmless error in admission/exclusion of evidence)