State of Iowa v. Zachary Scott Vulich, 15-1851

In November 2013 a 16-year-old (complaining witness) visited Zachary Vulich’s home; during an "ice fight" Vulich twice pinned her, inserted ice into her vagina, and touched her genitalia despite her pleas to stop. The older sister was present and at times assisted.
The State charged Vulich originally with two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree; charges were amended to one count of sexual abuse in the third degree and one count of assault while using an object to penetrate genitalia. A jury convicted on both counts in September 2015.
Vulich moved for a new trial challenging denial of requested jury instructions (consent and age-of-consent); the motion was denied. At sentencing the district court imposed imprisonment and lifetime supervision under Iowa Code chapter 903B; the State conceded lifetime supervision was inapplicable to the assault count.
On appeal Vulich argued (1) insufficient evidence for both convictions, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to expert testimony he says bolstered the victim’s credibility, (3) error in refusing consent and age-of-consent instructions, and (4) illegal sentence (improper lifetime supervision).
The Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, rejected ineffective-assistance and instruction claims, but vacated the lifetime-supervision special sentence as to the assault conviction and remanded for corrected sentencing.

Issue	State's Argument	Vulich's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — sexual abuse (force/against will)	Evidence (victim’s testimony, resistance, screams) is sufficient to show act was against her will	Contact occurred in an "ice fight"; sister testified it was joking and consensual	Affirmed — jury could credit victim’s testimony and the undisputed facts showed force or acts against her will
Sufficiency — assault with object (intent to cause offensive contact)	Intent can be inferred from natural/probable consequences and surrounding circumstances	Acts were playful; lacked intent to cause offensive contact	Affirmed — jury could infer intent from circumstances and victim’s resistance and effects
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to expert testimony	Expert did not vouch for credibility and limited testimony to interview protocol/research	Failure to object permitted impermissible credibility bolstering and prejudiced defense	Rejected — expert repeatedly disclaimed credibility opinions; no reasonable probability of different outcome
Jury instructions — consent and age-of-consent	Consent instruction inapplicable because assault was not a reasonably foreseeable incident of the alleged "ice fight"; age-of-consent not an element	Requested consent instruction (activity exception) and age-of-consent instruction should have been given	Rejected — assault was not a reasonably foreseeable incident of the activity; age-of-consent instruction not required by elements

State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Thornton, 498 N.W.2d 670 (Iowa 1993) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2004) (intent may be inferred from natural and probable consequences and surrounding circumstances)
State v. Floyd, 466 N.W.2d 919 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (consent instruction inapplicable where assault not a reasonably foreseeable incident of the alleged activity)