IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 12–1771
Filed April 4, 2014
TAMMY SMITH,
Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt County, Gary L.
McMinimee, Judge.
An applicant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision
affirming the district court judgment that she did not qualify for
compensation as a wrongfully imprisoned person. DECISION OF
COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED.
Derek J. Johnson of Johnson & Bonzer, PLC, Fort Dodge, and
Dani L. Eisentrager of Eisentrager Law Office, Eagle Grove, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
2
WIGGINS, Justice.
An applicant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision
affirming the district court judgment that she did not qualify for
compensation as a wrongfully imprisoned person. We agree with the
court of appeals that substantial evidence supports the district court’s
finding the applicant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
neither she nor anyone else committed the crime of child endangerment.
Therefore, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On June 1, 2007, a jury convicted the applicant, Tammy Smith, of
child endangerment resulting in serious injury against her four-year-old,
nonverbal son, G.S., under Iowa Code sections 726.6(1)(a) and 726.6(5)
(2005). Child endangerment resulting in serious injury is a class “C”
felony. Id. § 726.6(5). The district court sentenced Smith to an
indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years, with credit
for time served.
The court of appeals affirmed Smith’s conviction for the crime of
child endangerment resulting in serious injury by finding substantial
evidence supported the conviction. The substantial evidence consisted of
Smith’s inconsistent stories as to how the injury occurred, the medical
testimony G.S.’s injury most likely did not happen in the way Smith
described, and the medical testimony the injury could have occurred by a
person applying tremendous force to G.S.’s arm. G.S. was nonverbal and
unable to testify at Smith’s trial as to how the injury happened. The
court of appeals held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find
G.S.’s injury occurred as a result of Smith knowingly acting in a manner
to create a risk to G.S.’s physical health or safety.
3
In 2009, Smith applied for postconviction relief based on evidence
G.S. communicated his injury occurred when he placed his arm in the
washing machine. The district court denied her application. The court
of appeals, in its review of the postconviction relief proceedings, held this
was newly discovered evidence and ordered a new trial. On remand, the
district court vacated Smith’s conviction and granted the county
attorney’s motion to dismiss the case against Smith.
On November 21, 2011, Smith filed a petition for wrongful
imprisonment under Iowa Code section 663A.1 (2011). The district court
determined Smith did not establish by clear and convincing evidence
neither she nor anyone else committed the crime of child endangerment
resulting in serious injury. Smith appealed and we transferred the case
to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed. We granted
further review. We will detail other facts necessary to our decision in our
analysis.
II. Issue.
The issue before us is whether Smith is a wrongfully imprisoned
person under Iowa Code section 663A.1.
III. Standard of Review.
We review wrongful imprisonment claims for correction of errors at
law. State v. Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Iowa 2006). If substantial
evidence supports the district court’s factual findings, we uphold the
findings. State v. McCoy, 742 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 2007). “We
consider evidence as substantial if a reasonable person would accept the
evidence as adequate to reach the district court’s conclusion.” Dohlman,
725 N.W.2d at 430. When the district court denies compensation, our
review is “whether substantial evidence supports the district court’s
4
determination that [the claimant] did not prove the requirements of
section 663A.1(2) by clear and convincing evidence.” Id.
IV. Statutory Framework.
The legislature created a statutory cause of action for wrongful
imprisonment. See Iowa Code § 663A.1. The statute provides in relevant
part:
1. As used in this section, a “wrongfully imprisoned
person” means an individual who meets all of the following
criteria:
a. The individual was charged, by indictment or
information, with the commission of a public offense
classified as an aggravated misdemeanor or felony.
b. The individual did not plead guilty to the public
offense charged, or to any lesser included offense, but was
convicted by the court or by a jury of an offense classified as
an aggravated misdemeanor or felony.
c. The individual was sentenced to incarceration for a
term of imprisonment not to exceed two years if the offense
was an aggravated misdemeanor or to an indeterminate term
of years under chapter 902 if the offense was a felony, as a
result of the conviction.
d. The individual’s conviction was vacated or
dismissed, or was reversed, and no further proceedings can
be or will be held against the individual on any facts and
circumstances alleged in the proceedings which had resulted
in the conviction.
e. The individual was imprisoned solely on the basis
of the conviction that was vacated, dismissed, or reversed
and on which no further proceedings can be or will be had.
2. Upon receipt of an order vacating, dismissing, or
reversing the conviction and sentence in a case for which no
further proceedings can be or will be held against an
individual on any facts and circumstances alleged in the
proceedings which resulted in the conviction, the district
court shall make a determination whether there is clear and
convincing evidence to establish either of the following
findings:
5
a. That the offense for which the individual was
convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, including any lesser
included offenses, was not committed by the individual.
b. That the offense for which the individual was
convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned was not committed by
any person, including the individual.
3. If the district court finds that there is clear and
convincing evidence to support either of the findings
specified in subsection 2, the district court shall do all of the
following:
a. Enter an order finding that the individual is a
wrongfully imprisoned person.
b. Orally inform the person and the person’s attorney
that the person has a right to commence a civil action
against the state under chapter 669 on the basis of wrongful
imprisonment.
Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)–(3).
V. Analysis.
A cause of action for wrongful imprisonment is statutory. Thus, to
determine if an applicant is entitled to compensation we must apply the
statute to the facts.
A. Whether Smith Is a Wrongfully Imprisoned Person. The first
step in a cause of action for wrongful imprisonment is to determine if the
applicant meets the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned person under
Iowa Code section 663A.1(1). McCoy, 742 N.W.2d at 596–97. To qualify
as a wrongfully imprisoned person, the applicant must meet the
requirements of Iowa Code sections 663A.1(1)(a)–(e). The court decides
whether the applicant is a wrongfully imprisoned person by examining
the court record to determine if the applicant meets each criterion under
section 663A.1(1). McCoy, 742 N.W.2d at 597.
The district court examined the record and decided Smith satisfied
the first step of this analysis because she met the five criteria of Iowa
6
Code section 663A.1(1). The State charged Smith with the felony of child
endangerment resulting in serious injury, a jury convicted her, and the
district court sentenced her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment
not to exceed ten years under Iowa Code section 902.9(4) (2005). The
court of appeals vacated Smith’s sentence, and the State imprisoned
Smith solely because of this conviction. The parties do not challenge this
determination.
B. Whether Clear and Convincing Evidence Supports a Finding
the Offense for Which Smith Was Convicted, Sentenced, and
Imprisoned Was Not Committed by Any Person, Including Smith.
Once the court determines the applicant is a wrongfully imprisoned
person, the second step is for the court to determine whether there is
clear and convincing evidence to establish one of two requirements:
either the individual did not commit the offense, or any lesser included
offenses, “for which the individual was convicted, sentenced, and
imprisoned”; or no person, including the individual, committed the
offense “for which the individual was convicted, sentenced, and
imprisoned.” Iowa Code § 663A.1(2) (2011); accord McCoy, 742 N.W.2d
at 597. We have placed the burden of proof to establish either of these
requirements on the applicant. See McCoy, 742 N.W.2d at 598. By
proving either of these requirements, the applicant has proved his or her
innocence. Id. If the district court finds the person proved either of
these requirements by clear and convincing evidence, the district court
will enter an order identifying the person as a wrongfully imprisoned
person and inform the person he or she has a right to begin a civil action
against the State under Iowa Code chapter 669. Iowa Code § 663A.1(3).
The first alternative requirement under section 663A.1(2) requires
the applicant to prove “[t]hat the offense for which the individual was
7
convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, including any lesser included
offenses, was not committed by the individual.” Id. § 663A.1(2)(a). This
requirement assumes a crime was committed, but not by the applicant.
A classic example would be a case of mistaken identity in a robbery.
Smith claims the newly discovered evidence establishes she did not
inflict G.S.’s injuries, but rather the injuries were the result of an
accident caused by G.S. putting his arm in the washing machine while
the spin cycle was on. Thus, the first alternative will not apply because
she is arguing no person has committed child endangerment resulting in
serious injury. Accordingly, our analysis is focused on Iowa Code section
663A.1(2)(b).
The second alternative requirement under Iowa Code section
663A.1(2)(b) requires the applicant to prove by clear and convincing
evidence “[t]hat the offense for which the individual was convicted,
sentenced, and imprisoned was not committed by any person, including
the individual.” Id. § 663A.1(2)(b). In Dohlman, we examined a cause of
action for wrongful imprisonment, and we discussed what was necessary
for an applicant to meet his or her burden under Iowa Code section
663A.1(2). Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d at 432–35.
In Dohlman, in order to prove homicide by vehicle, the State had to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dohlman was operating his vehicle
under the influence of alcohol at the time of the victim’s death. See
Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d at 434. The court of appeals overturned his
homicide-by-vehicle conviction for insufficient evidence on the element of
intoxication. Without proof Dohlman was operating his vehicle under the
influence of alcohol at the time of the victim’s death, Dohlman did not
commit a crime under the statute, and the crash was nothing more than
a fatal accident resulting in no criminal liability.
8
We said the reversal of a conviction for homicide by vehicle on the
ground substantial evidence did not support the conviction did not mean
the applicant automatically met his burden to prove a crime was not
committed under Iowa Code section 663A.1(2). Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d at
432–33. Rather, the finding by the “appellate court only means when the
court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a
rational trier of fact cannot find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. at 433.
We then examined the evidence contained in the wrongful
imprisonment record. Id. at 434–35. We found even though the evidence
introduced in the criminal trial would not allow a rational trier of fact to
find Dohlman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide
by vehicle, the same evidence was sufficient to defeat Dohlman’s claim
that no person, including himself, committed the crime. See id. We
reached this conclusion because of the burden on the applicant to prove
by clear and convincing evidence no person committed the crime. See id.
at 435.
The clear and convincing evidence standard “means there are no
serious or substantial doubts as to the correctness or conclusions of law
drawn from the evidence.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).
In other words, the applicant meets his or her burden if the evidence
leaves no serious or substantial doubts that the crime for which the
applicant was convicted was not committed by anyone. In Dohlman, the
evidence supported the proposition a person’s driving skills are impaired
when that person’s blood alcohol level exceeds .05%. See Dohlman, 725
N.W.2d at 435. This evidence left us with serious or substantial doubts
that Dohlman was not driving his vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol when a criminologist testified his blood alcohol level was between
9
.081 and .096%. See id. at 435. Thus, we concluded Dohlman did not
meet his burden of proof. Id.
To determine whether an applicant has met his or her burden of
proof under Iowa Code section 663A.1(2)(b) that no person committed the
crime, we must review the wrongful imprisonment record and be satisfied
that we do not have any serious or substantial doubts that any person
did not commit a crime. This is a very high burden for the applicant to
meet. However, the legislature purposefully made the burden high
because the essence of a wrongful imprisonment claim is innocence. See
McCoy, 742 N.W.2d at 598.
C. Whether Substantial Evidence Supports the District Court’s
Finding Smith Did Not Establish Her Wrongful Imprisonment Action
by Clear and Convincing Evidence. The district court found Smith did
not prove by clear and convincing evidence she did not commit or any
person did not commit the crime of child endangerment resulting in
serious injury. This finding means the district court had serious or
substantial doubts that the crime of child endangerment resulting in
serious injury was not committed by any person including Smith. In
reaching this conclusion, the district court took judicial notice of the
records in the criminal case, the records in the postconviction relief case,
and the testimony presented in this matter. The district court was
correct when it used these records in making its finding under Iowa Code
section 663A.1. See State v. DeSimone, 839 N.W.2d 660, 672–73 (Iowa
2013) (stating the wrongful conviction record includes the records in the
underlying criminal case). Our task on appeal is to determine if
substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding.
10
Smith was charged and convicted under Iowa Code sections
726.6(1)(a) and 726.6(5) (2005). The legislature defines the crime of child
endangerment resulting in serious injury as follows:
1. A person who is the parent, guardian, or person
having custody or control over a child or a minor under the
age of eighteen with a mental or physical disability, or a
person who is a member of the household in which a child or
such a minor resides, commits child endangerment when the
person does any of the following:
a. Knowingly acts in a manner that creates a
substantial risk to a child or minor’s physical, mental or
emotional health or safety.
....
5. A person who commits child endangerment
resulting in serious injury to a child or minor is guilty of a
class “C” felony.
Iowa Code § 726.6(1)(a), (5).
Smith testified at the wrongful imprisonment hearing she saw G.S.
come up from the basement with his injured arm. She stated she did not
know until G.S. testified at the wrongful imprisonment hearing how G.S.
had injured his arm that day. Smith did not see the injury happen. At
the original trial, G.S. was unable to communicate how the injury
occurred.
This testimony is very different from the testimony Smith gave
before her trial when she told at least three different stories explaining
how G.S. injured his arm. Smith told one doctor she was removing
clothes from the dryer and then saw G.S. on the floor with a broken arm.
She told another doctor G.S. broke his arm by taking clothes out of the
dryer. Smith told still another doctor G.S. fell down the stairs and broke
his arm.
11
The medical testimony from her original criminal trial reveals
Smith’s stories were inconsistent with the medical evidence. Smith’s
story that G.S. fell was not consistent with one pediatrician’s testimony
that the injury appeared to require substantial force and was
inconsistent with a fall on a concrete floor. G.S.’s orthopedic surgeon
noticed it was an unusual fracture pattern for a child falling to the floor,
and he had some suspicions about Smith’s story. The surgeon testified
he “thought a significant amount of force had been applied to [G.S.’s]
arm as opposed to a slip and fall in the basement.” G.S.’s pediatric
hospitalist also received the story from Smith that G.S. had fallen to the
concrete floor. Another pediatric orthopedic surgeon received the story
from Smith that G.S. fell down the stairs. The surgeon stated the
multiple breaks in G.S.’s arm were unusual, and he typically saw these
types of breaks in a traumatic injury. He testified it was his medical
opinion G.S. did not receive these injuries from falling down the stairs or
falling to a concrete floor. Further, he stated to a reasonable degree of
medical certainty G.S.’s broken bones could have resulted from an adult
applying physical force to G.S.’s arm.
At the wrongful imprisonment hearing, Smith admitted none of
these stories was true. Smith stated she told the different stories
because she was scared for her family and she thought she needed to
have an explanation for G.S.’s injury.
At the wrongful imprisonment hearing, Smith also presented
evidence the washing machine was defective. Smith asserted the
washing machine continues to spin when the door is open. Smith
submitted a DVD showing the alleged washing machine defect. However,
the DVD showed the washing machine continued to spin only after
someone reached for the controls on the top of the machine, turned the
12
washing machine off, and opened its door. The DVD does not show the
door to the machine would open with the power on. This leaves a
reasonable question as to whether a child G.S.’s age and size could have
climbed on the machine, turned it off, and then opened the door.
Furthermore, G.S.’s story about his injury consistently involved
the washing machine, but it is not consistent regarding the fact that he
accidentally injured himself. G.S. testified at the wrongful imprisonment
hearing he thought he injured his arm in the washing machine. He
stated Smith was upstairs and he was playing in the basement alone.
Although G.S. was nonverbal at the time of the injury, a youth worker
testified G.S.’s verbal skills had improved when G.S. was in a youth
home and G.S. would say “arm” and “washing machine.” The youth
worker believed G.S. had been gesturing about the washing machine
since he arrived at the youth home. However, the youth worker could
not say whether G.S. was indicating he broke his arm in the washing
machine or Smith put his arm in the washing machine. A separate
employee from the youth home testified G.S.’s communications led him
to believe G.S. caught his arm in the washing machine and broke it that
way. However, the employee from the youth home also testified at one
point G.S. said Smith put his arm in the washing machine.
There is also testimony G.S.’s father may have influenced G.S.’s
testimony. The youth home supervised all phone calls to G.S. while G.S.
was in the youth home. At some point, a supervisor began to monitor all
phone calls between G.S. and G.S.’s father. Staff members and the
supervisor believed the conversations were leading and G.S.’s father was
trying to manipulate the staff members. The youth worker acknowledged
G.S.’s father did not coach G.S. to say certain things, but G.S. would
repeat things back to his father. The youth worker also stated she
13
believed G.S.’s father may have interpreted G.S.’s statements in a way
G.S.’s father wanted them to be interpreted.
Smith’s inconsistent statements, the medical testimony, the
question as to whether G.S. could have manipulated the washing
machine as displayed in the DVD, G.S.’s ambiguous statements as to
how the injury occurred, and the potential coaching by G.S.’s father
leaves serious or substantial doubts that any person, including Smith,
did not commit the crime of child endangerment resulting in serious
injury against G.S. Accordingly, we find substantial evidence supports
the district court’s finding Smith did not prove by clear and convincing
evidence she did not commit or any person did not commit the crime of
child endangerment resulting in serious injury.
VI. Disposition.
Finding substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding
Smith did not establish by clear and convincing evidence neither she nor
anyone else committed the crime of child endangerment resulting in
serious injury, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and the
judgment of the district court.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF
DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.