State v. Kraai

• Decision Date: 28 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 19-1878,19-1878
• Citation: 969 N.W.2d 487
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kurt Allen KRAAI, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

969 N.W.2d 487

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Kurt Allen KRAAI, Appellant.

No. 19-1878

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted December 15, 2021

Filed January 28, 2022

Pamela Wingert (argued) of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Louis S. Sloven (argued), and Susan R. Krisko, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

McDonald, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

McDONALD, Justice.

Kurt Kraai was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree arising out of the sexual abuse of his daughter, N.F. The primary witnesses at trial were N.F., who testified to the acts of sexual abuse, and Kraai, who denied the allegations of sexual abuse. In this direct appeal, Kraai contends the district court erred in instructing the jury that "[t]here is no requirement that the testimony of a complainant of sexual offenses be corroborated." Kraai contends the instruction violated Iowa Code section 709.6 (2017), which provides that "[n]o instruction shall be given in a trial for sexual abuse cautioning the jury to use a different standard relating to a victim's testimony than that of any other witness to that offense or any other offense." Kraai also contends the instruction, given without any other instruction regarding other witness testimony, unduly emphasized the testimony of N.F. The court of appeals concluded the instruction was erroneous but the error was not prejudicial under the circumstances presented. Both the State and Kraai applied for further review, and we granted the applications.

I.

We first address the question of whether the district court erred in instructing the jury that there is no requirement that the testimony of a complainant of sexual offenses be corroborated. Our review is for the correction of legal error. See State v. Rohm , 609 N.W.2d 504, 509 (Iowa 2000) (en banc). In conducting our review, we review the instructions "as a whole to determine their accuracy." State v. Donahue , 957 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Iowa 2021). A challenged instruction is "judged in context with other instructions relating to the criminal charge, not in isolation." State v. Liggins , 557 N.W.2d 263, 267 (Iowa 1996). An incorrect or improper instruction can be cured "if the other instructions properly advise the jury as to the legal principles involved." Thavenet v. Davis , 589 N.W.2d 233, 237 (Iowa 1999) (en banc).

A.

Iowa Code section 709.6 provides that "[n]o instruction shall be given in a trial for sexual abuse cautioning the jury to use a different standard relating to a victim's testimony than that of any other witness to that offense or any other offense." The court of appeals, sitting en banc, provided a comprehensive history of the law relating to the enactment section 709.6. Having little to add to the court of appeals’ historical discussion, we quote it at length here:

Through much of the twentieth century, Iowa courts uniformly instructed juries that because "rape is easy to charge and difficult to disprove," the word of a "prosecutrix" was not enough, standing alone, to convict her assailant. SeeState v. Feddersen , 230 N.W.2d 510, 514 (Iowa 1975) [(en banc)] (citing State v. Griffith , 241 Iowa 1328, 45 N.W.2d 155 (1950) ). That pernicious and outdated caution is dubbed the Lord Hale instruction, named for England's Sir Matthew Hale, chief justice of the Court of the King's Bench from 1671 to 1676. SeeMark v. State , 556 N.W.2d 152, 154 (Iowa 1996) (citing Feddersen , 230 N.W.2d at 514–15 ). In his writings, Hale recounted allegations of rape instigated by false accusations. SeePeople v. Rincon-Pineda , 14 Cal.3d 864, 123 Cal.Rptr. 119, 538 P.2d 247, 255 (1975). Hale also heartily encouraged that rape "be punished with death." Feddersen , 230 N.W.2d at 514.

Under Iowa law, a defendant could not be convicted of rape "upon the testimony of the person injured, unless she be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." See Iowa Code § 782.4 (1973). But in 1974, the legislature removed the need for corroborative evidence in rape prosecutions. Feddersen , 230 N.W.2d at 514. Our supreme court followed suit, disapproving the Lord Hale instruction the next year. Id. Feddersen found "at least four vices" in the cautionary instruction:

First, it constitutes a comment on the evidence. Second, it applies a stricter test of credibility to the rape victim than to other witnesses in the trial. Third, it applies a stricter test of credibility to rape victims than to victims of other crimes. Fourth, trial courts have been accorded an indiscriminate right to give or refuse to give the instruction absent any guidelines for so doing.

Id. at 515.

After Feddersen , the legislature enacted section 709.6 to ensure that juries applied the same standard to the testimony of alleged victims of sexual abuse as other witnesses.

State v. Kraai , No. 19-1878, 2021 WL 1400366, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021) (en banc).

Given that background, we cannot conclude the noncorroboration instruction given in this case violated section 709.6. The statute only prohibits the district court from "cautioning the jury to use a different standard relating to a victim's testimony than that of any other witness to that offense or any other offense." Iowa Code § 709.6. The challenged instruction, on its face, did not caution the jury to use a different standard relating to the victim's testimony than that of any other witness. Instead, the noncorroboration instruction told the jury that the complainant witness's testimony need not be corroborated. This was a correct statement of law. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(3) ("Corroboration of the testimony of victims shall not be required."); State v. Hildreth , 582 N.W.2d 167, 170 (Iowa 1998) (stating that "the alleged victim's testimony is by itself sufficient to constitute substantial evidence of defendant's guilt," and observing that "[t]his court has held that a rape victim's accusation need not be corroborated by physical evidence"); State v. Knox , 536 N.W.2d 735, 742 (Iowa 1995) (en banc) ("The law has abandoned any notion that a rape victim's accusation must be corroborated."). The noncorroboration instruction was also consistent with the purpose of section 709.6, which was passed to abolish the anachronistic Lord Hale rule requiring corroboration of a complainant's testimony to sustain a conviction for sexual abuse.

B.

Although the noncorroboration instruction was not in violation of section 709.6 and was a correct statement of the law, the instruction was nonetheless improper because it unduly emphasized the complainant witness's testimony. "Iowa law requires a court give a requested instruction as long as the instruction is a correct statement of law, is applicable to the case, and is not otherwise embodied elsewhere in the instructions." Eisenhauer ex rel. T.D. v. Henry Cnty. Health Ctr. , 935 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Iowa 2019). However, the district court may not "give instructions that provide undue emphasis to any particular aspect of the case." Id. (citing Burkhalter v. Burkhalter , 841 N.W.2d 93, 106 (Iowa 2013) ). Nor should the district court give instructions that "draw attention to specific evidence" in a case. State v. Marsh , 392 N.W.2d 132, 133 (Iowa 1986).

This court has long held that instructions that set apart, highlight, or accentuate the testimony of a particular witness or a particular piece of evidence are improper. In State v. Bester , this court considered an instruction that stated the defendant's testimony need not be received "as true" but could be given "full and careful consideration" in order to determine "whether it or any part of it [was] true or false, and whether such testimony [was] given by the defendant in good faith or for the purpose of avoiding conviction." 167 N.W.2d 705, 706 (Iowa 1969). The instruction further stated that the jury could "take into consideration [the defendant's] interest in the outcome of [the] case as a person charged with a crime," giving it "such weight as [deemed] it entitled to in view of all the facts and circumstances." Id. The district court also gave a general instruction on how the jury should assess the credibility of all witnesses, including the interests of the witnesses in the outcome of the trial, their motives, candor, fairness, bias, and reasonableness of the testimony. Id. at 706–07. We held that it was reversible error to "single[ ] out and comment[ ] upon the testimony of a defendant" because it was "of prime importance to [the] defendant that the case not be weakened by special judicial comment on [his] interest in the case and the weight to be given his testimony as distinguished from the testimony of other witnesses." Id. at 710.

This court revisited Bester in State v. Nepple , 211 N.W.2d 330, 332 (Iowa 1973). In that case, the jury was given two instructions regarding witness credibility. Id. The first was a "general instruction on credibility, applicable to all witnesses," but the second was an instruction that the "defendant's testimony should not be discredited because he was charged with a crime; his testimony was to be treated like that of any other witness." Id. This court stated that the instruction was not "as offensive" as the instruction in Bester but was nonetheless erroneous "because it violate[d] the rationale of Bester that instructions relating to the credibility of a witness should be general and apply equally to all of the witnesses for the State and defendant alike." Id. This was true even though the instruction in Nepple was given to bolster the defendant's testimony.

In State v. Milliken , the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. 204 N.W.2d 594, 595 (Iowa 1973). The defendant objected to two jury instructions relating to specific evidence. Id. The first instruction told the jury that the presence of the odor of liquor on the defendant's breath was not in...