State of Iowa v. Phillip Leroy Smith, 16-0126

Phillip L. Smith was convicted of third‑degree sexual abuse after a jury trial; conviction affirmed on appeal.
During voir dire a prospective juror recognized Smith’s name but did not disclose context; that juror later recalled seeing Smith on the sex‑offender registry, did not disclose it to the court or other jurors, and served as jury foreperson.
Trial evidence included testimony from the victim and the investigating officer; the officer testified the victim’s statements were consistent and described certain of Smith’s interview statements as "strange."
After a roughly 30‑minute deliberation the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict; postverdict the foreperson contacted the judge and prosecutor to report his prior knowledge of registry status.
Defense moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct/bias and ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct during questioning and closing; the district court found the foreperson credible, that he did not share the registry information, and denied the motion.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed denial of new trial for abuse of discretion and preserved ineffective‑assistance claims for postconviction proceedings where the record was inadequate to decide them on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether nondisclosure by juror of having seen defendant on sex‑offender registry constituted juror misconduct that warrants a new trial	State: Foreperson did not share registry information, did not do outside research, and therefore no misconduct influenced verdict	Smith: Foreperson’s failure to disclose registry knowledge was misconduct/bias that deprived him of an impartial jury	Court: No abuse of discretion in denying new trial — juror’s testimony credible, information was not shared with jurors, and no reasonable probability it affected the unanimous verdict
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct (bolstering victim, vouching, improper references in closing)	State: Many challenged statements were permissible testimony about consistency or reasonable inferences; one Dateline reference was improper but not obviously prejudicial on this record	Smith: Prosecutor vouched for the victim and injected outside information/opinion; counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial	Court: Preserved ineffective‑assistance claims for postconviction relief because the record is inadequate to determine whether counsel’s omissions were tactical or prejudicial; some questioned conduct (e.g., Dateline comment) conceded improper by State

State v. Cullen, 357 N.W.2d 24 (Iowa 1984) (three‑part test for juror misconduct)
State v. Webster, 865 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 2015) (distinguishing juror misconduct and juror bias; standard of review for new‑trial denial)
Nguyen v. State, 707 N.W.2d 317 (Iowa 2005) (prohibition on asking one witness to vouch for another witness’s credibility)
State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 2014) (permitting testimony on consistency of a victim’s statements without impermissible bolstering)
State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (factors for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice)