State v. Edouard
| Decision Date | 18 July 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–1899.,12–1899. |
| Citation | 854 N.W.2d 421 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Patrick EDOUARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Gary D. Dickey Jr. and Angela L. Campbell of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Scott K. Brown, and Laura M. Roan, Assistant Attorneys General, and Edward W. Bull, County Attorney, for appellee.
A pastor who had sexual relations with four women in his congregation was convicted of four counts of sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist and one count of a pattern or practice to engage in sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist. See Iowa Code § 709.15(2)(a ), (c ) (2013).1
The pastor appealed, contending: (1) the district court failed to properly instruct the jury on the sexual exploitation statute; (2) the district court abused its discretion in excluding expert testimony concerning differences between pastoral care and pastoral counseling; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the pastor's convictions; (4) the district court erred in denying the pastor's discovery request for one of the victim's counseling records; (5) the sexual exploitation statute is unconstitutional as applied to the pastor; (6) the district court wrongly excluded certain fact evidence; and (7) the district court erred in the amount of restitution awarded against the pastor.
On appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial. It found that the jury instructions were improper and the district court had abused its discretion in excluding the proffered expert testimony. Upon further review, we respectfully disagree with the court of appeals and find no error on these points. We therefore vacate the court of appeals decision.
We also reject the pastor's remaining claims of error, with two exceptions. We find the district court should have conducted an in camera review of the counseling records. We therefore remand so this review may occur, along with further proceedings if necessary. We also reverse the restitution award and remand for further proceedings thereon. In all other respects, we affirm the pastor's convictions and sentence.
We recite the facts in the manner most favorable to the jury verdicts.2
Patrick Edouard served as the pastor of the Covenant Reformed Church in Pella from 2003 to 2010. Witnesses testified that his sermons were “amazing,” “great,” and “dynamic.” He was a “very talented speaker.” “He definitely could preach the word of God.”
V.B. and her husband were members of the church from the time Edouard arrived in 2003. In 2005, Edouard began making unsolicited calls to V.B. on her cellphone. V.B. was undergoing fertility treatments unsuccessfully and was struggling with her infertility. Edouard began asking questions about V.B.'s personal life, and she began to confide in him.
When V.B. arrived at Edouard's house, Edouard's wife and family were present. Edouard told his wife, “We could be a while,” and he and V.B. headed down to the study in the basement. Edouard then locked the door to the study so, as he explained, the children would not interrupt them. The study served as Edouard's office, and had bookshelves, a desk, and two couches.
Edouard asked V.B. how she was doing, and she explained she was really struggling with this adoption. “I wasn't sure if it was what God wanted for me in my life,” she said. Edouard asked V.B. about her marriage and whether her husband was “meeting [her] needs.” V.B. started to cry and said that things were difficult. At that point, Edouard made advances toward her and had sexual relations with her.
Edouard continued to call V.B. on her cellphone thereafter. He repeatedly told V.B. that her husband was not meeting her needs. He also told V.B. he was attracted to her. They would talk two or three hours a day. V.B. would call Edouard, in addition to Edouard calling V.B. This lasted for months. Edouard also arranged liaisons with V.B. during the workday at hotel rooms and other buildings near V.B.'s office. Edouard would appear at V.B.'s workplace uninvited.
Edouard made it clear he did not want a loan, because he could get a loan elsewhere and did not want to be burdened with a repayment obligation. V.B. gave Edouard a total of $70,000.
Eventually, after V.B. adopted a child, the relationship cooled. In approximately November 2009, V.B. called Edouard and told him she knew what he was doing, “that he's trying to get women into counseling for the purpose of trying to have sexual contact with them.” Edouard panicked and tried to call or see V.B. at her office, but V.B. refused to have any communication with him for several months. Their sexual relationship ended. V.B. did not report anything to the church elders or the police at the time, because she did not think she would be believed.
S.K. and her husband were also active members of the Covenant Reformed Church when Edouard arrived in 2003. Four years later, when S.K.'s husband happened to be out of the country, Edouard began calling S.K. to check up on her.
S.K.'s father was going through a severe illness at that time and later in 2007 passed away. S.K.'s husband was depressed. S.K.'s daughter was having problems in her marriage. S.K. was feeling down because of her father's death and the troubles in her daughter's marriage. S.K. also learned that her husband had had two affairs. In addition, S.K.'s best friend passed away.
Edouard called S.K. on her cellphone while S.K. was driving and wanted to know how she was doing. S.K. responded that she was not doing very well. S.K. started shaking; she pulled her car over. At this point Edouard made a comment to S.K. that “he would like it if we could be together under the cool, crisp sheets.” He added, S.K. was shocked by Edouard's comment.
However, some months later, in early 2008, S.K. called Edouard because she “just had absolutely nobody to talk to.” Her relationship with her husband was rocky. Edouard sensed something was going on and said, “You can tell me ... things, and I'll listen.” S.K. asked him to come see her, because she wanted to discuss her problems in her marriage with him. At the meeting, she disclosed her husband's affairs to Edouard. After about thirty minutes of conversation, Edouard asked S.K. if he could kiss her. Thereafter, Edouard and S.K. had many meetings where they kissed. They began having sex.
In the spring of 2008, Edouard took S.K. down to the study in the basement of his house. He locked the door, and S.K. thought they would talk. Instead, they had sex. Afterward Edouard told her:
You will never tell anybody. The elders will never believe you. They will only believe me. I'll make sure everybody knows you're crazy. You'll kill your husband.... You'll destroy the church. You'll hurt your family and you will hurt [my family].
S.K. had sexual relations with Edouard a total of six to eight times. S.K. felt that Edouard “had power” over her. “He made me feel like I depended on him,” she said.
Eventually Edouard terminated the relationship. But he said to S.K., “Call me if you ever need me or need somebody to talk to, I'll always be there for you night or day.”
W.B. and her husband also belonged to Covenant Reformed Church when Edouard became the pastor in 2003. W.B.'s father had been a pastor himself.
In August 2007, W.B. attended a church service alone. Edouard approached her after the service and asked how she was doing. As the conversation progressed, W.B. felt Edouard was flirting with her. During the course of the week, Edouard called again. The discussion was again flirtatious. W.B. could not sleep or eat. She prayed.
On the following Thursday, W.B. asked Edouard for a meeting. She intended to “let him down.” It was arranged for the meeting to occur in the office in Edouard's home. Edouard assured W.B. it was fine to come to his home during an evening, as he “counsels women” in his home.
When W.B. arrived, Edouard and his family were there. Edouard took W.B. down to the basement office and locked the door. Edouard asked W.B. very personal questions. Edouard posed “a lot of questions—very concerned about how I was doing, how my father is doing.” W.B.'s father had recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. W.B. disclosed to Edouard that she had been sexually abused as a child. The conversation lasted a couple of hours. There was no sexual contact.
Edouard and W.B. continued to meet. They had sexually charged conversations. Soon they began to have sex. Edouard told W.B. not to tell anyone...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Price-Williams
...of race and racial proxies).35 See, e.g. , State v. McNeal , 867 N.W.2d 91, 99 n.1 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Edouard , 854 N.W.2d 421, 452–53 (Iowa 2014) (Appel, J., concurring specially); State v. Tyler , 830 N.W.2d 288, 291–92 (Iowa 2013) ; State v. Oliver , 812 N.W.2d 636, 650 (Iowa 2012).3......
-
Pippen v. State, 12–0913.
...applies, but reserve the right to apply that standard in a fashion different from federal courts. See State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 452–54 (Iowa 2014) (Appel, J., concurring specially). Using this approach, we have reserved for another day some very important constitutional issues under......
-
Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc.
...precipitation as “T,” standing for “trace.”3 See, e.g., State v. Guerrero Cordero, 861 N.W.2d 253, 258 (Iowa 2015) ; State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421, 431 (Iowa 2014) ; Asher v. OB–Gyn Specialists, P.C., 846 N.W.2d 492, 496 (Iowa 2014) ; Hagenow v. Schmidt, 842 N.W.2d 661, 670 (Iowa 2014) ;......
-
Bandstra v. Covenant Reformed Church
...concluding in relevant part that sufficient evidence existed to support a conviction of sexual exploitation. See State v. Edouard , 854 N.W.2d 421, 439 (Iowa 2014), overruled on other grounds by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699, 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016). In rejecting a constitut......