State of Iowa v. Ricky Lee Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1

Background

Ricky Putman was tried for first-degree sexual abuse of a two-year-old (L.R.) after she sustained vaginal penetration injuries; Putman was convicted by a jury.
Investigators seized Putman’s computer, external hard drive, CD, and a USB drive; a DCI forensic examiner found thousands of child-pornography images/videos and two video file names specifically referencing rape of two-year-old children.
Defense moved to exclude evidence of child pornography; the district court allowed limited testimony that child pornography was found and permitted the DCI witness to state only the file names of two videos; the State agreed not to display images or mention the material in opening.
Defense argued admission was impermissible propensity evidence; State argued the material was admissible to prove identity and motive (identity being the primary disputed issue because defense blamed the victim’s father).
The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed admissibility under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(6): it found the two video titles were strikingly similar to the charged offense, concluded there was clear proof of Putman’s possession, and held probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice given the narrow limiting measures.
The court affirmed Putman’s conviction; three justices dissented, arguing possession alone did not establish an "act" for 5.404(6) or that prejudice outweighed probative value.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of child-pornography evidence under Iowa R. Evid. 5.404(6)	Evidence was admissible for noncharacter purposes (identity, motive) and the two video titles were highly probative of identity	The evidence was impermissible propensity evidence; possession alone did not prove an "act" and was too prejudicial	Admissible in narrowly limited form: file names of two videos allowed; overall admission did not abuse discretion
Whether identity was a legitimately disputed issue	Identity was central because defense alleged another person (father) committed the abuse	N/A (defense contested relevance to identity)	Identity was the only disputed issue and thus a proper noncharacter purpose for 5.404(6) use
Whether there was clear proof defendant committed the prior bad acts	Possession shown by ownership/use of devices, Peterman’s testimony, contents linking Putman (photos of Putman on same drive)	Forensics could not prove who downloaded files or precise timestamps; devices were briefly in third-party possession	Court required and found clear proof as independent prong based on totality of evidence; jury instructed to require clear proof
Whether probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice (Iowa R. Evid. 5.403)	High probative value on identity; district court mitigated prejudice by limiting testimony, forbidding images/opening mention, and giving a limiting instruction	Evidence of child pornography is uniquely inflammatory and likely to prompt conviction on improper basis	Probative value not substantially outweighed given the district court’s narrow tailoring and limiting instructions; admission upheld

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19 (Iowa 2004) (sets multi-step prior-bad-acts admissibility framework)
State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2004) (clear-proof standard and balancing factors discussed)
State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757 (Iowa 2010) (prior-acts review standard; identity issues)
State v. Butler, 415 N.W.2d 634 (Iowa 1987) (admission for identity when acts are strikingly similar)
State v. Walsh, 318 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1982) (admission for identity when acts are unusually similar)
Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (evidence relevant only if jury can reasonably conclude the act occurred and defendant was actor)
In re J.A.L., 694 N.W.2d 748 (Iowa 2005) (limits on admitting writings/materials lacking specific connection to charged act)
State v. Barrett, 401 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 1987) (inadmissibility when writings lack similarity/connection; prejudice concerns)
State v. Reynolds, 765 N.W.2d 283 (Iowa 2009) (treats clear proof as factor in balancing analysis)
State v. Plaster, 424 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1988) (limiting instructions and prejudice considerations)