State of Iowa v. Robert John Thede
15-0751
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Defendant Robert Thede, age 60, developed a sexually charged relationship with his 14–15-year-old granddaughter, providing sexualized gifts (lingerie, vibrator) and discussing her sexual activity.
- In August 2013, while she was visiting, Thede asked his granddaughter to shave his pubic area and anus with an electric razor; she complied and testified he spread his buttocks and moved his penis during the shaving; a teen witness heard sexually suggestive comments and perceived Thede as enjoying it.
- Later that night Thede supplied alcohol and organized a naked "whipped cream" incident involving teens and told his granddaughter he wanted to perform oral sex on her.
- The State charged Thede with third-degree sexual abuse, indecent exposure (for the shaving incident), and later added an incest charge; Thede waived a jury and was found guilty by the district court.
- On appeal Thede contested sufficiency of evidence that (1) a "sex act" occurred (arguing the electric razor was not an artificial sexual organ/substitute and the shaving was nonsexual) and (2) he lacked the sexual intent required for indecent exposure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the electric razor constituted an "artificial sexual organ or substitute" such that its contact with genitalia/anus qualifies as a sex act | The razor functioned like a vibrator and was a substitute for a sexual organ; its contact with genitalia satisfies §702.17 | Razor is not a sex toy or substitute for a sexual organ; not used for penetration or masturbation; at best a substitute for a hand | Court held razor could reasonably be viewed as an artificial sex organ or substitute; contact with genitalia/anus satisfied the statutory definition of "sex act." |
| Whether the shaving incident was sexual in nature | Context (gifts, sexual talk, witnesses, later lewd conduct) shows lascivious purpose; sexual gratification inferred from conduct and remarks | Shaving could have been hygienic; laughter/"horseplay" suggests nonsexual intent | Court found circumstantial evidence (relationship, comments, witness observations, later lewd acts) supported sexual nature; sufficient for sex-act elements. |
| Whether evidence supported incest conviction (i.e., a sex act with a descendant) | Same evidence of sex act supports incest element | Challenges tied to sex-act sufficiency | Court affirmed incest conviction—sex-act finding satisfies incest element. |
| Whether indecent exposure required proof of sexual intent and whether that element was met | Intent to arouse can be inferred from conduct, words, and circumstances; erection or masturbation not required | No evidence of masturbation or erection, so no proof of intent to arouse | Court held intent to arouse may be inferred; surrounding conduct sufficed to prove the intent element for indecent exposure. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Whetstine, 315 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 1982) (finger can be a substitute for a sexual organ for purposes of sex-act definition)
- State v. Martens, 569 N.W.2d 482 (Iowa 1997) ("genitalia" broadly includes organs and surrounding pubic area)
- State v. Pearson, 514 N.W.2d 452 (Iowa 1994) (sexual nature and prohibited contact may be inferred from type and context of contact)
- State v. Monk, 514 N.W.2d 448 (Iowa 1994) (distinguishing "horseplay" from sexual conduct based on context)
- State v. Mueller, 344 N.W.2d 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (hand used as substitute sexual organ in context of sexual contact)
- State v. Isaac, 756 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2008) (elements of indecent exposure include intent to arouse)
- State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 2008) (intent to arouse may be inferred from conduct, remarks, and circumstances)
- State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2016) (standard for sufficiency review)