State of Iowa v. Nicholas S. Blaufuss, 15-2174

Victim D.J., age 12–13 in 2014, lived temporarily in Donald Chipman’s home where 30‑year‑old Nicholas Blaufuss also stayed and had frequent access to the house.
D.J. reported repeated sexual contact by Blaufuss between mid‑August and October 2014 and testified at trial to three specific incidents (vaginal penetration, digital penetration, and forced oral sex) plus an uncharged incident (exposing and masturbating on her).
The State charged Blaufuss with three counts of third‑degree sexual abuse; the jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed concurrent and consecutive indeterminate ten‑year terms.
On direct appeal Blaufuss alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failing to object to testimony about uncharged sexual acts and (2) failing to request a limiting jury instruction limiting use of other‑acts evidence.
The contested evidence included Detective Moret’s summary that D.J. said the abuse occurred “several times” or “almost every night,” D.J.’s trial testimony about uncharged conduct, and the CPC interview video summary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony about uncharged sexual acts	State: evidence of other acts was admissible under Iowa Code §701.11 to show sexual passion/propensity regarding this victim	Blaufuss: counsel should have objected because probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice in a he‑said‑she‑said case	Court: No ineffective assistance — evidence was highly probative, similar in nature to charged acts, and exclusion would have lacked merit
Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction (Iowa Crim. Jury Instr. 900.11)	State: absence of instruction did not prejudice defendant because evidence concerned only conduct with this victim, not general propensity	Blaufuss: instruction was required to prevent jurors from impermissible propensity inference and to protect credibility contest	Court: No Strickland prejudice; counsel had strategic reason to avoid instruction (defense sought to discredit all allegations)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for ineffective assistance on direct appeal)
State v. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d 95 (Iowa 2008) (admissibility and review of prior sexual‑abuse evidence under §701.11)
State v. Redmond, 803 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2011) (limitations on impeachment with prior convictions; not directly on §701.11)
State v. Spaulding, 313 N.W.2d 878 (Iowa 1981) (other‑acts evidence admissible to show passion or propensity toward particular victim)
State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810 (Iowa 2000) (instructions error must show reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (constitutional limits on admitting prior sexual‑act evidence as general propensity)
State v. Munz, 355 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1984) (admission of prior sexual acts to show passion/propensity toward same victim)
State v. Henderson, 804 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (no breach where counsel fails to make meritless objection)
State v. Ary, 877 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 2016) (measuring counsel performance against prevailing professional norms)