State of Iowa v. Vernard Archer, 16-0590

Background

Early morning attack on E.W. in an Iowa City apartment: intruder threatened her with a knife, pinned her, and ground his erect penis against her buttocks/genital area; she screamed and the assailant fled. 911 call described a heavyset Black male in a clear plastic mask and dark clothing.
Police canvassed nearby area; one initially detained person was rejected by E.W. as too tall/ thin. About 45 minutes after the assault, officers detained Vernard Archer six blocks away wearing clothing matching the victim’s description.
E.W. viewed Archer from across the street and immediately identified him as the attacker, stating she was “a hundred percent sure.” Another officer (Officer LaKose) had seen a similarly clothed man exit a courtyard near the scene shortly before the 911 call, later found a steak knife in that courtyard, and identified Archer at trial; the knife bore E.W.’s DNA.
Archer was charged with first-degree burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon, and third-degree sexual abuse; a jury convicted him on all counts.
On appeal Archer argued his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to move to suppress the show-up identification under the Iowa Constitution, (2) failing to call an eyewitness-identification expert or request a jury instruction on reliability, and (3) failing to challenge sufficiency of evidence that a “sex act” occurred. The court reviewed ineffective-assistance claims de novo.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Archer's Argument	Held
Admissibility of show-up identification / counsel’s failure to move to suppress	Identification was reliable and independent evidence supported conviction; counsel’s omission did not prejudice outcome	Show-up procedure was suggestive and violated due process; counsel should have moved to suppress (and Iowa should adopt Wisconsin “necessity” standard)	No prejudice shown. Even if show-up had been excluded, independent evidence (officer sightings, matching clothing, knife with victim DNA) made a different outcome unlikely. Claim fails.
Failure to call eyewitness-identification expert or request instruction	Trial addressed ID reliability through cross-examination and closing; officer and witness observations and physical evidence rendered expert/instruction unnecessary to alter outcome	Counsel should have presented expert testimony or requested the standard jury instruction on eyewitness ID to educate jury about reliability problems	No prejudice shown. Expert or instruction would not likely have changed verdict given corroborating officer observations, matching clothing, and DNA on the knife. Claim fails.
Sufficiency of evidence that a “sex act” occurred (i.e., contact between genitalia/anus)	E.W.’s testimony that she felt Archer’s erect penis against her buttocks/genital area, plus context, suffices to allow jury to infer a sex act	Testimony was not specific enough given clothing layers; counsel should have moved for acquittal on this ground	Not preserved at trial, but evaluated as ineffective-assistance claim: no prejudice. Viewing evidence in State’s favor, testimony was sufficient to support sex-act element. Claim fails.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (reliability test for admissibility of out-of-court identifications)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (framework referenced in identification reliability analysis)
State v. Halverson, 857 N.W.2d 632 (Iowa discussion of ineffective-assistance analysis)
State v. Folkerts, 703 N.W.2d 761 (Iowa adoption of federal reliability standard for identifications)
State v. Webb, 648 N.W.2d 72 (Iowa precedent on reviewing evidence in sufficiency challenges)
State v. Schutz, 579 N.W.2d 317 (discretion to admit expert testimony on eyewitness identification)
State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (standard for de novo review of ineffective-assistance claims)