Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 7-597 / 06-1570 Filed September 19, 2007 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL RAMON JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Timothy O'Grady, Judge.

Michael Roman Johnson appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Assistant Attorney General, Matthew Wilber, County Attorney, and Daniel McGinn and Shelly Sedlak, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.

2

EISENHAUER, J. Michael Roman Johnson appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of second-degree sexual abuse and two counts of third-degree sexual abuse. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS. J.W., an eight-year-old boy, lived with his mother and had overnight visits with Johnson, his father. Johnson's parents allowed Johnson to live in the

basement of their home and Johnson and J.W. slept together in a bed in the basement. On September 2, 2004, Dr. Ravipati, a board-certified child psychiatrist, saw J.W. for an outpatient psychiatric evaluation because J.W. was having difficulty controlling his temper. Dr. Ravipati noted J.W. was defying authority, impulsive, very anxious, and felt that something bad was going to happen. Dr. Ravipati diagnosed J.W. with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and depression and recommended J.W. obtain individual counselling with a therapist. In addition to seeing the therapist, J.W. met with Dr. Ravipati ten times over the course of the next year. On July 30, 2005, J.W. told his mother about Johnson's alleged sexual abuse, his mother called the police, and the police interviewed J.W. the next day. In September 2005, J.W.`s therapist asked Dr. Ravipati to perform another evaluation due to J.W.'s worsening behavior. J.W. was engaging in sexually inappropriate actions with animals and other children. During this evaluation, J.W. told Dr. Ravipati that his father, Johnson, had threatened to murder J.W.

3

when Johnson pulled down J.W.`s pants. J.W. also stated his father had touched him and had forced him to watch pornographic movies. Dr. Ravipati diagnosed J.W. as having post-traumatic stress disorder. On August 15, 2006, the case was tried to a jury. At trial, J.W. testified about incidents of sexual abuse and threats made by Johnson. Johnson denied all allegations of sexual abuse. The State utilized Dr. Ravipati as an expert witness. The jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of third-degree sexual abuse and one count of second-degree sexual abuse. On September 27, 2006, the district court sentenced Johnson to three concurrent sentences. The longest sentence was twenty-five years of incarceration with a statutory minimum for second-degree sexual abuse. On appeal Johnson raises two issues. First, Johnson argues the trial

court should not have allowed testimony from Dr. Ravipati because it constituted an impermissible comment on J.W.'s credibility. Second, Johnson argues his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to statements made by the prosecutor in closing argument. II. SCOPE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW. We review evidentiary rulings, including the admission of expert testimony, for an abuse of discretion. State v. Belken, 633 N.W.2d 786, 793 (Iowa 2001). 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."

4

State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234, 239 (Iowa 2001). We will affirm the trial court's evidentiary ruling on any ground, even if it was not argued or relied upon in the trial court. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62-63 (Iowa 2002). We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Hannan v. State, 732 N.W.2d 45, 50 (Iowa 2007). III. MERITS. A. EXPERT TESTIMONY

Johnson argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony of Dr. Ravipati that improperly bolstered J.W.`s credibility. Johnson admits Dr. Ravipati`s testimony did not explicitly state J.W. was telling the truth, but argues the testimony is improper because it implies J.W. was telling the truth. At trial, Johnson's attorney objected during Dr. Ravipati`s testimony and the court ruled: Well, to the extent that you try to reach the opinions from Dr. Ravipati that [J.W.] is being truthful or credible, that's not going to be allowed. That's not appropriate testimony and not an appropriate area for expert testimony even. . . . [Dr. Ravipati] can't specifically talk about how [J.W.] is credible or truthful or believable, but he can talk about symptoms and how they match his experience with these sorts of cases. While we take a liberal approach to the admissibility of expert testimony, we do not allow expert testimony directly expressing an opinion on the credibility of a witness. State v. Allen, 565 N.W.2d 333, 338 (Iowa 1997). However,

experts are allowed to "express opinions on matters explaining the pertinent mental and physical symptoms of the victims of abuse." Id. "There is a fine but essential line between testimony that is helpful to the jury and an opinion that merely conveys a conclusion concerning the defendant's guilt." Id.

5

The trial judge accurately summarized Iowa law and correctly instructed the parties regarding permissible and impermissible expert testimony. After the trial court's ruling, the prosecutor questioned Dr. Ravipati: Q. Generally, doctor, the children you have treated who have been sexually abused, one of the symptoms it that they sexually act out? A. That is correct. Q. And the sexually acting out, that type of symptom, is that similar to the symptoms you heard in your treatment of [J.W.]? A. Yes, I have. Q. Also, Doctor, this sexually acting out that's done by patients

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL RAMON JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellan

Iowa Law