State of Iowa v. Scott Carl Fister
15-1542
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Defendant Scott Fister, uncle by marriage to victim K.S., was convicted by a jury of third-degree sexual abuse for sexual contact with K.S. when she was 14–15 (occurring between May 1, 2005 and April 30, 2006).
- Victim testified to repeated sexual touching (over and under clothing), oral contact, and being made to touch defendant; incidents alleged to have occurred at the Fister home, during sleepovers, and on hunting trips.
- Defendant and close family members denied the abuse and disputed opportunities to commit it; no contemporaneous physical evidence or reports corroborated the victim’s testimony.
- Jury convicted; district court sentenced Fister to up to ten years (mandatory minimum seven) and imposed lifetime sex-offender supervision under Iowa Code § 903B.1 (effective July 1, 2005).
- On appeal, Fister challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of his motion for new trial (weight of the evidence), and (3) imposition of lifetime supervision as an ex post facto violation because the jury’s general verdict left uncertain whether the offense occurred before or after § 903B.1’s effective date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: Victim’s consistent testimony and defendant’s inconsistent statements provide substantial evidence to support conviction | Fister: Victim’s testimony unreliable and uncorroborated; conviction not supported beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed — jury credibility determination upheld; evidence sufficient when viewed in State’s favor |
| New trial (weight of evidence) | State: Jury verdict should stand; evidence supports credibility finding | Fister: Verdict was against the weight of the evidence; trial court should grant new trial after independent weighing | District court erred: trial court applied sufficiency standard and failed to independently weigh evidence; appellate court conditionally affirmed conviction but vacated denial of new-trial motion and remanded for proper weight-of-evidence review |
| Ex post facto challenge to lifetime supervision | State: Lifetime supervision proper under § 903B.1 | Fister: Special sentence violates Ex Post Facto because jury’s general verdict could reflect conduct before § 903B.1’s effective date | Vacated special sentence: because jury’s general verdict does not establish offense date, lifetime supervision under § 903B.1 (effective July 1, 2005) could not be imposed; sentence vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Brubaker v. State, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for sufficiency-of-evidence claims)
- Bash v. State, 670 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Canal v. State, 773 N.W.2d 528 (Iowa 2009) (marshaling instruction is law of the case for sufficiency review)
- State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1993) (rare exception treating victim testimony as a nullity when testimony is inherently incredible)
- Scalise v. State, 660 N.W.2d 58 (Iowa 2003) (trial court must independently weigh evidence on motion for new trial)
- Ary v. State, 877 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 2016) (appeal standards for new-trial rulings; error of law review when wrong standard applied)
- Lathrop v. State, 781 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2010) (lifetime parole/supervision treated as punitive for Ex Post Facto analysis)