State of Iowa v. Patrick Michael Dudley, 2014 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 103

Two counts of second-degree sexual abuse (Iowa Code 709.3(2)) were charged against Dudley; jury convicted him.
Plea bargain offered: State would dismiss charges if Dudley passed a polygraph; offer expired once B.O.’s deposition occurred; Dudley later took polygraphs, one in Minnesota (passed) and one in Iowa (failed).
State withdrew the offer prior to Dudley’s polygraph; Dudley did not detrimentally rely on the offer before taking the test.
Trial included treating-therapist Casey’s expert testimony and forensic interviewer Bibbins’ testimony about interview methods; concerns raised about vouching for victim credibility.
Neighbor Korinek testified about B.O.’s statements; district court admitted neighbor testimony under excited utterance exception; Dudley sought to impeach witness Gannaway with a 20+ year-old theft conviction; ruling denied.
Court of Appeals affirmed some issues but remanded for new trial; this Court granted review and held plea offer was not violated, but expert testimony amounted to improper vouching, requiring new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State repudiate the plea agreement and breach Dudley’s right to dismissal?	Dudley relied on the offer and was detrimentally impacted.	State withdrew the offer before Dudley’s polygraph; no detrimental reliance.	No breach; district court properly denied enforcement; plea not violated.
Did expert testimony improperly vouch for the victim’s credibility?	Expert testimony supported victim credibility; permissible under law.	Experts impermissibly vouched for credibility by linking symptoms to abuse.	Expert testimony amounted to impermissible vouching; remand for new trial.
Was Korinek’s excited-utterance testimony admissible?	Excited utterance exception applied to B.O.’s statements.	Time lapse and prompting contaminated spontaneity; improper admission.	Admissibility improper; should not have been admitted on retrial.
May Dudley impeach Gannaway with a 20+ year-old theft conviction?	Past dishonesty conviction admissible under Rule 5.609.	Constitutional and probative value outweighed by age and prejudice.	To be revisited on retrial under Rule 5.609 analysis.

Hovind v. State, 431 N.W.2d 366 (Iowa 1988) (limits on sanction for plea repudiation; mutual performance required)
State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369 (Iowa 1998) (plea withdrawal allowed until guilty plea or reliant action)
State v. Myers, 382 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1986) (expert testimony on child sexual abuse traditional principles)
State v. Gettier, 438 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1989) (limits on expert testimony commenting on credibility)
State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1992) (explanation of victim behavior in abuse cases)
State v. Hulbert, 481 N.W.2d 329 (Iowa 1992) (experts cannot bolster credibility of a witness)
State v. Elliott, 806 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 2011) (hearsay rulings reviewed for error)
Favoccia v. Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2012) (limits on expert testimony linking general characteristics to victim)
Spicola v. People, 922 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. 2011) (rebuttal use of CSAAS testimony; causation of credibility concerns)
Beckley v. State, 456 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. 1990) (rehabilitation use of expert testimony; not general vouching)