Vincent Mummau, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1909

Background

In July 2011, B.K., a 73‑year‑old woman, visited Vincent Mummau’s home; an encounter ended with sexual acts Mummau admitted but claimed were consensual. A jury convicted him of third‑degree sexual abuse and he was sentenced up to ten years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Mummau filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel on multiple grounds (failure to object to vouching/hearsay, inadequate impeachment, failure to present character evidence, inadequate investigation, and general ineffectiveness).
At PCR proceedings, Mummau sought subpoenaed cell‑phone records for B.K. and eight others to show inadequate investigation/impeachment; the court denied most requests and ultimately denied disclosure of B.K.’s records after her estate objected.
The PCR court held an evidentiary hearing, received defense counsel’s deposition, and found counsel’s choices were strategic and not objectively unreasonable nor prejudicial; PCR relief was denied.
Mummau appealed, arguing ineffective assistance and that the PCR court abused its discretion by denying subpoenas for cell‑phone records. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of PCR and upheld the discovery rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mummau)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Ineffective assistance — vouching/objections	Counsel failed to object to witnesses’ statements that bolstered victim credibility and should have sought mistrial	Counsel made timely objections in many instances; where not, statements were not improper or counsel reasonably preserved a favorable jury by avoiding mistrial	No ineffective assistance; counsel’s strategy reasonable and not prejudicial
Ineffective assistance — hearsay/Confrontation	Counsel failed to object to hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations (recording and testimonial statements, DNA testimony)	Many statements were not hearsay (not offered for truth), objections were made or were strategically waived; any Confrontation error was harmless	No ineffective assistance; issues meritless or harmless beyond reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance — impeachment/character/investigation	Counsel inadequately impeached B.K., failed to present character witnesses, and did not sufficiently investigate (including financial motives and phone records)	Counsel pursued plausible strategy (showing consent/regret), avoided opening door to prior assault conviction, and investigation duty not limitless; requested records speculative	No ineffective assistance; strategic choices reasonable and no showing of prejudice
PCR discovery — subpoena of cell‑phone records	PCR court abused discretion by refusing subpoenas for B.K. and others; records would show who she contacted and impeach her timeline	Statute relied on inapplicable; records unlikely to reveal content or lead to admissible evidence; not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence	No abuse of discretion; subpoenas denied properly

Key Cases Cited

State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (standard for ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Polly, 657 N.W.2d 462 (Iowa 2003) (preponderance requirement for PCR ineffective‑assistance claims)
State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa 2014) (prohibition on vouching for witness credibility)
State v. Brown, 856 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 2014) (vouching and expert testimony boundaries)
State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325 (Iowa 1992) (expert testimony limits and hearsay context)
State v. Ross, 845 N.W.2d 692 (Iowa 2014) (deference to trial strategy; unsuccessful strategy not necessarily ineffective)
State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 2006) (hearsay exceptions and admissibility)
State v. Wells, 738 N.W.2d 214 (Iowa 2007) (Confrontation Clause — testimonial statements and cross‑examination)
State v. Lopez, 872 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2015) (no duty to raise meritless objections)
Schrier v. State, 347 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1984) (scope of counsel’s duty to investigate)
Willard v. State, 893 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 2017) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings)
State v. Hobbs, 172 N.W.2d 268 (Iowa 1969) (foundational requirements for admitting character evidence)