IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1617
Filed March 8, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT PAUL KROGMANN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, Linda M.
Fangman, Judge.
Robert Krogmann appeals his convictions for attempted murder and willful
injury causing serious injury. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Jamie L. Hunter and Angela Campbell of Dickey, Campbell, & Sahag Law
Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Heard by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Gamble, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
GAMBLE, Senior Judge.
Robert Krogmann appeals following his convictions for attempted murder
and willful injury causing serious injury. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings
Krogmann and J.S. began a relationship in 2007. But they broke up in
January 2009. Then J.S. reached out to Krogmann to get a small kitchen appliance
back from him; they got back together. But things were not the same, instead they
were tense. J.S. discovered Krogmann was communicating with women on
Match.com, so she ended their relationship. Krogmann wanted her back and
would call her fifty times a day for “days on end.” He even showed up at her house
unannounced while she was gone, and J.S.’s brother, Michael, had to convince
Krogmann to leave. But J.S. never felt like Krogmann was a danger, and she even
went to visit him at his house after they broke up.
Around this same time, Krogmann’s family became increasingly concerned
about him. His older brother always had concerns about Krogmann’s mental
health, but he believed Krogmann’s mental health was declining even further.
Krogmann’s sister-in-law thought Krogmann’s mental health was the worst she had
ever seen it and that Krogmann was fixated on J.S. Krogmann had told his mother
he wanted to go to J.S.’s house and kill himself there. His son, Jeff, believed
Krogmann was suicidal, so he took Krogmann’s long guns away from him on
March 11.
This all led up to March 13. J.S. was having a “lazy morning, drinking
coffee” because she was off of work that week. Then Krogmann showed up at
J.S.’s house. He asked to come inside, and J.S. let him in. He asked if they could
3
get back together; she said no. He responded by asking for a hug, and she
obliged. J.S. turned around to get her cup of coffee and when she turned back
around, Krogmann was pointing a handgun at her.
J.S. asked Krogmann if he was going to shoot her, he replied that they were
both going to die together and “[i]f he couldn’t have [her], then no one was gonna.”
Then he shot her, but she couldn’t feel anything. He said “he didn’t want to spend
the rest of his life in jail and he was gonna finish it and then he shot again.” “[H]e
said he was gonna kill [her] and then was gonna shoot himself.” J.S. asked him to
call 911, but he said he could not because he purposefully left his phone in the car
so he would not be able to call for help.
Krogmann shot J.S. a third time, and the bullet went through her spine,
causing her to fall immediately. She asked him to get her pillow and a rosary. The
two said a prayer together before Krogmann remarked he didn’t think it would take
her that long to die.
Eventually, Krogmann retrieved J.S.’s phone and called Jeff to say he shot
J.S. and Jeff needed to call 911 right away. Jeff left work for J.S.’s house and
called 911. As some point, Krogmann also called 911 and informed dispatch that
“someone had been shot.” Meanwhile, Krogmann let J.S. call her mother. She
told her mother that she loved her and asked her mother to tell her father and
daughters that she loved them, and then she asked her mom to call Michael.
Krogmann responded by ending the phone call and turning off her phone.
Meanwhile, J.S.’s mother called Michael and told him to get to J.S.’s home as fast
as he could.
4
Jeff showed up and took the gun away from Krogmann. Michael arrived
just after Jeff and chased Krogmann out of the house with a broom. Krogmann
and Jeff left while Michael stayed with J.S.
Emergency personnel took J.S. to a regional medical center so she could
be airlifted to the University of Iowa Hospital, where she remained for three weeks.
She underwent multiple surgeries. As a result of her injuries, she has no strength
in one of her hands, walks with a cane due to a lack of feeling in her feet, and
wears a brace on her leg from the knee down because her ankle “doesn’t work at
all.” She is in constant pain every day.
As for Krogmann, officers followed Jeff to Krogmann’s house and took
Krogmann into custody as he headed back home. Once in custody, Jack Liao, a
special agent with the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation, was assigned to
interview Krogmann. That interview was videotaped. Special Agent Liao found
Krogmann seated in a restraint chair that restrained his arms and legs. Special
Agent Liao asked for the arm restraints to be removed because he would not
normally interview suspects in restraint chairs. A deputy loosened the restraints
on Krogmann’s arms and later his hands, but Krogmann remained restrained in
the chair by his legs. At the beginning of the interview Krogmann began by asking
if J.S. was okay. Then Krogmann went over what happened at J.S.’s home that
morning. He admitted shooting J.S. At times during the interview Krogmann talked
very softly or in a whisper. And sometimes there were long pauses in between
Special Agent Liao’s questions and Krogmann’s answers.
The State charged Krogmann with attempted murder and willful injury
causing serious injury. The jury in his first trial found Krogmann guilty of both
5
counts. Krogmann appealed, and the supreme court affirmed his convictions.
State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 520 (Iowa 2011). Then he sought
postconviction relief (PCR), which the PCR court denied. This court affirmed the
PCR court. Krogmann v. State, No. 15-0772, 2017 WL 363226, at *10 (Iowa Ct.
App. Jan. 25, 2017). However, the supreme court granted further review, found
structural error, and granted Krogmann a new trial. Krogmann v. State, 914
N.W.2d 293, 318–25 (Iowa 2018).
Krogmann filed notice of his intent to rely on the defense of diminished
capacity on retrial. The State filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude, among
other things, “[a]ny out of court statements made by the defendant that are offered
by the defendant at trial and not subject to an exception.” Krogmann resisted.1
Krogmann explained the video of Special Agent Liao’s interview of him would
contain his out-of-court statements but could be offered for purposes other than to
prove the truth of the matter asserted like to demonstrate his mental and emotional
state and his ability to follow the conversation around the time of the shooting.
Following a hearing on the parties’ motions in limine, the court determined
Krogmann’s out-of-court statements were
[g]enerally . . . considered hearsay by [Iowa] Rule of
Evidence 5.801(d)(2)(A) as well as State v. Veal, 564 N.W.2d 797,
808 (Iowa 1997). However, an exception to those general rules may
be applicable. As such, [that portion] of the State’s motion in limine
is sustained unless and until a proper foundation is laid for an
exception.
It filed an additional order specifically addressing Krogmann’s ability to introduce
the video of Special Agent Liao’s interview with Krogmann—exhibit A. The court
1 Krogmann also filed a motion in limine.
6
determined exhibit A would not be admissible because it amounted to hearsay
without an exception and Krogmann could not offer his own out-of-court
statements under Veal, 564 N.W.2d at 808.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. The parties presented numerous
witnesses, including respective expert witnesses who testified as to Krogmann’s
ability to form specific intent. Special Agent Liao testified. During his testimony,
he noted his entire interview with Krogmann was recorded. In response,
Krogmann made an offer of proof for exhibit A. Counsel explained:
So we think that Mr. Liao’s testimony has opened the door to
offering that exhibit. It is the best evidence of what the substance of
Mr. Liao’s testimony was. It shows Mr. Krogmann’s demeanor. It
shows time frames. It shows how many times and how he was being
questioned and the State did elicit testimony from Mr. Liao about
what was going on in the interview. They were asked about—he was
asked, did he seem to track and understand; was he following the
conversation; was this a normal conversation; were these—this was
not unusual. There was nothing unusual about the interview. And I
think that the video itself actually shows the opposite, Your Honor. It
shows the demeanor of the defendant as being confused at times,
not responsive at times. There’s long pauses. He’s talking so softly,
it’s not a normal conversation. It’s not just someone speaking softly,
it is something different. It is showing, we think, the demeanor of the
defendant and the current mental state of the defendant at that
particular time.
So because—the officer is also shown a transcript, an
unofficial transcript of the recording by the State and the best
evidence of that interview is simply the actual interview. So we would
offer Exhibit A as a court’s exhibit for an offer of proof.
The court reaffirmed its pre-trial rulings on exhibit A and found Special Agent Liao’s
testimony did not open the door to the video.
Following deliberations, the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
Krogmann filed motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, which the district
court denied.
7
Krogmann appeals.
II. Discussion
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence2
We review Krogmann’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for
corrections of errors at law. State v. Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 615 (Iowa 2012).
Guilty verdicts must be supported by substantial evidence, which is “that upon
which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.” State v. Serrato, 787 N.W.2d 462, 465 (Iowa 2010) (citation omitted).
While we consider all evidence, we view it in the light most favorable to the State.
Id. So “[e]vidence is not insubstantial merely because we may draw different
conclusions from it; the ultimate question is whether it supports the finding actually
made, not whether the evidence would support a different finding.” State v. Lacey,
968 N.W.2d 792, 800–01 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted).
Krogmann appears to only challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
establishing his specific intent to kill J.S. with respect to his attempted-murder
conviction. The marshalling instruction3 for attempted murder required the jury to
find the following three elements satisfied:
2 Section V of Krogmann’s appellate brief argues the evidence at trial was
insufficient to support his convictions and the weight of the evidence did not
support his convictions. These are two distinct inquires, and only the former
implicates double jeopardy. See State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655, 659 (Iowa 1998).
Because success on the sufficiency challenge would require us to remand for
judgment of acquittal and end our inquiry, we start with that issue and bifurcate the
two claims raised in section V of Krogmann’s appellate brief. Because we
conclude Krogmann is entitled to new trial on an evidentiary issue, we do not reach
his weight-of-the-evidence challenge.
3 Krogmann did not object to instruction eighteen, the marshalling instruction.
“Where, as here, the jury was instructed without objection, the jury instructions
8
1. On or about March 13, 2009, the defendant shot [J.S.]
2. By his acts, the defendant expected to set in motion a force
or chain of events which would cause or result in the death of [J.S.]
3. When the defendant acted, he specifically intended to
cause the death of [J.S.]
Krogmann asserts he could not have had the specific intent to kill J.S. because,
even if he was capable of forming such specific intent, the evidence establishes
he had additional ammunition in his revolver but chose not to shoot J.S. again and
he sought out help for J.S.—contradicting a finding that he intended to kill J.S. We
disagree. J.S. testified Krogmann made several statements about intending to kill
her as he shot her three times at close range with a high-caliber handgun. He left
his phone in his vehicle during the shooting so he wouldn’t be tempted to call for
help. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude
the State established sufficient evidence Krogmann specifically intended to cause
the death of J.S. when he shot her three times.
B. Exhibit A
We move on to consider the admissibility of exhibit A. We generally review
evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Powers v. State, 911 N.W.2d 774,
780 (Iowa 2018). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court exercises its
discretion ‘on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.’” State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234, 239 (Iowa 2001) (citation
omitted). However, “[w]e review evidentiary rulings on hearsay for errors at law.”
State v. Skahill, 966 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2021).
become the law of the case for the purposes of reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence.” State v. Banes, 910 N.W.2d 634, 639 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018).
9
Krogmann’s challenge to the court’s exclusion of exhibit A is persuasive on
two fronts: the video did not amount to hearsay and it should have been admitted
under the best evidence rule.4
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered “into evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted in the statement.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(c). A statement
can be an oral or written assertion or even nonverbal conduct if intended as an
assertion.5 Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(a). Hearsay is not admissible unless an exception
applies. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.802. However, we need not consider whether a
hearsay exception applies when evidence “is not offered to show the truth of the
matter asserted” because it is not hearsay. State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 812
(Iowa 2017).
We do not just blindly accept an offering party’s explanation that proposed
evidence would not be used for the truth of the matter asserted. See State v.
Hollins, 396 N.W.2d 701, 705 (Iowa 1986). “Rather, we review the relevant record
to determine if the purpose voiced by the [offering party] can reasonably be found
to be the real purpose for which the challenged testimony was offered.” Id. “For
us to conclude the [the offering party]’s purpose in offering challenged [evidence]
4 Krogmann argues Special Agent Liao’s testimony “opened the door” to the
admissibility of the video under the rule of completeness. Indeed, our supreme
court has recognized, “[T]he rule of completeness in Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.106
might be characterized as posing an open-the-door concept.” State v. Huser, 894
N.W.2d 472, 507 (Iowa 2017). However, while Krogmann mentioned that the State
“opened the door to offering” the video in his argument to the district court, he did
not raise the rule of completeness at the trial that he now asserts on appeal, so we
decline to address it. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 352 (Iowa 2002).
5 Nonverbal conduct amounts to a statement when it conveys information; for
example, if someone acts out prior events to explain what happened to them, that
amounts to a nonverbal assertion or statement. See State v. Dessinger, 958
N.W.2d 590, 599 (Iowa 2021).
10
was in fact to explain” or demonstrate some responsive conduct or behavior, “that
conduct [or behavior] must itself be relevant to some aspect of the [offering party]’s
case.” Id. at 705–06. If the challenged evidence is relevant to the offering party’s
case only if the statements contained in the challenged evidence are accepted as
true, then the challenged evidence is actually being offered for the truth of the
matter asserted, amounting to inadmissible hearsay unless some hearsay
exception applies. Id. at 706.
With that in mind, we turn to Krogmann’s desired use of exhibit A. The State
contends the real reason for Krogmann’s offer of the video was to put his out-of-
court statements in front of the jury without cross-examination. The State posits
he sought to prove the truth of his statements under the guise of seeking sympathy
for his mental illness. So, according to the State, Krogmann’s statements are
hearsay and no exception applies. But the State’s argument is unpersuasive. The
substance of Krogmann’s statements is inculpatory. He confesses to shooting J.S.
and goes along with many of Special Agent Liao’s questions. And at oral
argument, the State had difficutly identifying a statement that Krogmann offered to
prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Krogmann makes it clear that he did not want to admit the video for the
purpose of introducing his out-of-court statements. Certainly, if he sought to admit
his verbal statements made in the video those would amount to hearsay. But the
real reason Krogmann sought to introduce the video was to show his demeanor
during the interview to demonstrate his mental instability on the day of the
shooting. And Krogmann’s mental instability is at the heart of his defense.
11
Krogmann’s demeanor during the interview was hotly contested. Special
Agent Liao testified on direct examination that Krogmann was able to track,
understand, and follow the conversation. He could comprehend and stay on topic.
He was responsive and volunteered information. He was not intoxicated or
impaired by drugs. Special Agent Liao agreed on cross-examination that
Krogmann was talking quietly and whispering at times, there were long pauses,
and it was not a quick conversation. But he also testified it was not a fluid
conversation and it seemed Krogmann was “cognizantly thinking of almost a short
answer as opposed to a normal conversation.” Krogmann’s conduct on the video
was relevant to establish his mental instability regardless of whether the
statements made in the video are considered as true. See id.
We conclude Krogmann really did seek to admit the video for a purpose
other than to introduce the statements in the video for their truth. Instead,
Krogmann offered the video as evidence of his diminished capacity. The State’s
expert formed his opinion that Krogmann had the capacity to form specific intent
without even watching the video. But Krogmann’s expert found the video of
Krogmann writhing around in his chair, panting, not looking at the officer, covering
his face, and looking away to be informative in coming to her opinion that
Krogmann lacked capacity to form specific intent. From the video, the jury would
have been able to observe his conduct, demeanor, and ability to follow a
conversation. None of that amounts to hearsay. And contrary to the State’s
position, his nonverbal conduct did not amount to out-of-court statements because
his conduct was not intended to convey information—rather it is merely indicative
of his state of mind on the day of the shooting. See Dessinger, 958 N.W.2d at 599.
12
In addition to misclassifying the evidence sought to be admitted as hearsay,
the district court was also misguided in relying on Veal. 564 N.W.2d at 808–09.
In Veal, the defendant sought to admit her own out-of-court statements. Id. at 808.
Specifically, Veal attempted to admit her statements under the excited utterance
exception, as statements by a party opponent, and statements against her
interest.6 Id. at 808–09. But Veal is inapplicable to the present case because
Krogmann is not attempting to introduce his out-of-court statements like the
defendant in Veal. Instead, he is attempting to introduce his conduct and behavior
following the shooting to demonstrate his state of mind. So we think the district
court missed the mark by excluding exhibit A under Veal.
Instead, we think the present case is more akin to State v. Decker, 744
N.W.2d 346, 356 (Iowa 2008), which addressed the admissibility of an
interrogation video wherein permissible and impermissible evidence were
intertwined. In Decker, the court permitted the State to introduce the video “for the
limited purpose of allowing the court to ‘see the defendant and observe his
demeanor.’” 744 N.W.2d at 356. That is what Krogmann sought to do. “Our rules
of evidence allow evidence to be admitted for a limited purpose even though that
same evidence is inadmissible for another purpose.” Id. “When admissibility is
limited, the court ‘restrict[s] the evidence to its proper scope and instruct[s] the jury
6 Veal also raised a constitutional claim based on the Iowa and federal
Constitutions, claiming her right to present a defense was impinged. Veal, 564
N.W.2d at 809. The supreme court concluded there were no constitutional
implications because the proposed evidence did not reach the heart of the case
and “a reasonable jury could not have reached a different verdict based on the
statements Veal sought to introduce.” Id.
13
accordingly.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.105). There is
no reason that could not have happened here.
We are cognizant that Decker was a bench trial, while Krogmann had a jury
trial, and Decker warned of the potential danger of prejudice even with a limiting
instruction in jury trials. See id. But we do not have that concern under these facts
because Krogmann has already admitted to the most prejudicial and incriminating
fact—he admits to shooting J.S. And the specifics of Krogmann’s statements in
the video are almost indiscernible because he speaks so softly during the
interview.
We also think after the State elicited testimony from Special Agent Liao
about his interview with Krogmann the “best evidence” rule required admission of
exhibit A. “The ‘Best Evidence’ rule requires production of original documents
unless their absence is sufficiently explained.” State v. Khalsa, 542 N.W.2d 263,
268 (Iowa 1995). The purpose of the best evidence rule is to secure the most
reliable information as to the contents of documents when those terms are
disputed. Id. So “[w]hen a party is attempting to prove the contents of a writing,
recording, or photograph, the courts require the original to be produced, unless it
falls under exceptions carved out by the Iowa Rules of Evidence.” Id. Here there
is a slight nuance, the content of the recording sought to be proven isn’t the terms
of the conversation between Krogmann and Special Agent Liao but instead how
Krogmann was acting during the conversation.
The State and Krogmann largely disagreed as to how Krogmann acted
during the interview, making the best evidence rule applicable. See id. (concluding
the best evidence rule did not apply when the defendant objected to the
14
introduction of transcripts of properly admitted audiotapes but did not contest the
reliability or accuracy of the transcripts). And the video showing Krogmann during
the interview is the best evidence.
Special Agent Liao watched the video of the interview within forty-eight
hours before he testified. He had a difficult time remembering the details of the
interview, which is understandable considering more than twelve years had
passed. Nevertheless, Special Agent Liao testified to his impressions of how
Krogmann acted during the conversation. And Krogmann’s expert described what
she saw on the video. Her description of Krogmann’s conduct was different from
Special Agent Liao’s. But any uncertainty as to what transpired during the
interview could have been put to bed by admitting exhibit A. As the old saying
goes, “A picture is worth a thousand words, although here, we have a video—a
series of pictures.” Ransdell v. Huckleberry Ent., LLC, No. 19-0545, 2020 WL
5650728, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2020). “A video is often the best evidence
of the [event] as opposed to someone describing it.” Id. at *7. Likewise, the video
here is the best evidence of Krogmann’s conduct and demeanor right after the
shooting rather than having Special Agent Liao and the expert describe it. See
State v. Williams, 197 N.W. 991, 994 (Iowa 1924) (“The photographs themselves
were the best evidence of what they showed.”). The jury should have been allowed
to see the video.
Taking all of this into consideration, we conclude the court erred in excluding
exhibit A as hearsay and abused its discretion in excluding it on other grounds.
See State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 675 (Iowa 2014) (recognizing hearsay
challenges are reviewed for legal error and all other evidentiary challenges are
15
reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Now we must determine whether exclusion
of exhibit A was harmless. “Reversal is required for evidentiary error when ‘the
error affects a substantial right of the party.’” State v. Montgomery, 966 N.W.2d
641, 661 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Iowa R. Evid. 5.103(a)). “We presume the
defendant’s rights have been prejudiced unless the State can affirmatively
establish otherwise. The State overcomes the presumption of prejudice if it can
establish that there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Id.
(citation omitted). Here, exhibit A goes to the heart of Krogmann’s defense of
diminished responsibility. And the parties elicited conflicting expert testimony as
to Krogmann’s ability to form specific intent. So we conclude the exclusion of
exhibit A was not harmless and retrial is necessary. However, we caution that
exhibit A should not be admitted without jury instructions limiting the scope of the
jury’s consideration of the exhibit.7
C. Remaining Claims
“Because we find the case must be remanded for a new trial, we will
consider any remaining issues that may arise again on retrial.” Zaw v. Birusingh,
974 N.W.2d 140, 168 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021) (quoting Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913
N.W.2d 55, 73 (Iowa 2018)). As for Krogmann’s numerous remaining claims, we
only address Krogmann’s claim that his convictions should merge.
7 A limiting instruction is an important tool for the district court to utilize to minimize
the potential for any undue prejudice. See State v. Martin, 704 N.W.2d 665, 673
(Iowa 2005); see also State v. Esse, No. 03-1739, 2005 WL 2367779, at *4 (Iowa
Ct. App. Sept, 28, 2005) (“Pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.105, when
evidence is admissible for one purpose, but not for another, the district court shall,
upon request, restrict the evidence to its proper scope and give a limiting
instruction.”).
16
Krogmann already raised this claim in his PCR action. Krogmann, 914
N.W.2d at 325. Our supreme court addressed the issue because it was likely to
arise again and concluded merger does not apply to attempted murder and willful
injury causing serious injury. Id. The supreme court was correct that the issue
would reoccur. Krogmann puts forth the same argument as he did in his PCR
action. He recognizes current supreme court precedent forecloses his claim but
argues those cases, including his own PCR appeal, were wrongly decided. We do
not have the ability to overturn supreme court precedent. See State v. Hastings,
466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are not at liberty to overturn Iowa
Supreme Court precedent.”). Moreover, as the State highlights, Krogmann’s
challenge is barred by issue preclusion. “Issue preclusion is a type of res judicata
that prohibits parties ‘from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and
resolved in [a] previous action.’” Barker v. Iowa Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 922 N.W.2d
581, 587 (Iowa 2019) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). So should
Krogmann be convicted of both counts on retrial, the offenses will not merge as
the supreme court already determined. Krogmann, 914 N.W.2d at 325.
III. Conclusion
Sufficient evidence supports Krogmann’s conviction for attempted murder,
so he is not entitled to judgment of acquittal. However, the district court should
have permitted Krogmann to introduce exhibit A because it was not hearsay and it
was the best evidence of Special Agent Liao’s interview of Krogmann. So we
reverse the district court’s ruling on exhibit A. We reverse Krogmann’s convictions
and remand for new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.