State v. Miller

1

State of Iowa, Resister, v. Kadin Jeffrey Miller, Applicant.

No. 22-0903

Supreme Court of Iowa

March 8, 2024

Submitted December 13, 2023

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, District Associate Judge.

The defendant challenges the district court's determination that the crime of harassment was sexually motivated requiring the defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 692A. Decision of Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part and Reversed in Part; District Court Judgment Reversed.

Lucas M. Taylor (argued) of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert (argued) Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

McDonald, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined except Christensen, C.J., who filed a dissenting opinion.

OPINION

McDonald, Justice.

Kadin Miller recorded himself having consensual sexual intercourse with his girlfriend. According to Miller, the relationship ended on bad terms. To "annoy[]" his former girlfriend and "get back at her" for the way the relationship ended, Miller posted the video of them having intercourse on a pornography website without his former girlfriend's consent. Miller was convicted of harassment in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(a)(5) (2019). He was sentenced to serve two years in prison for this offense and ordered to register as a sex offender. The narrow question presented in this appeal is whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 692A.

I.

Under Iowa law, "[a] person who has been convicted of any sex offense . . . shall register as a sex offender as provided in [chapter 692A] if the offender resides, is employed, or attends school in this state." Id. § 692A.103. Although the sex offender registration statute is not punitive for constitutional purposes when applied to an adult, State v. Aschbrenner, 926 N.W.2d 240, 247-48 (Iowa 2019); State v. Pickens, 558 N.W.2d 396, 400 (Iowa 1997), the statute does impose significant consequences on those required to register. Information regarding the offender is placed on an internet site accessible to the public. Iowa Code § 692A.121. The offender is required to appear in person to register with the sheriff of each county where the offender has a residence, maintains employment, or is in attendance as a student. Id. § 692A.104(1). The offender is required to notify the sheriff within five business days of any changes in relevant information. Id. § 692A.104(2)-(5). Even when there is no change in relevant information, the offender is required to verify relevant information on a periodic basis. Id. § 692A.108. The offender is required to pay additional fees and civil penalties. Id. § 692A.110. The offender is subject to exclusion zones, limiting where he or she can reside. Id. §§ 692A.113-114. The offender is also prohibited from working in certain occupations. Id. § 692A.115. Failure to comply with any of these requirements subjects the offender to additional criminal sanction. Id. § 692A.111.

The Code sets forth a comprehensive list of sex offenses that require an offender to register as a sex offender. Id. § 692A.102. Some offenses are per se sex offenses for which a conviction, standing alone, requires registration. Cf. In re Det. of Huss, 688 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2004) (discussing per se sexually violent offenses in Iowa Code section 229A.2(8)). Examples of per se sex offenses include, but are not limited to, certain categories of sexual abuse, "dissemination or exhibition of obscene material to minors," "[r]ental or sale of hard-core pornography, if delivery is to a minor," and "[r]eceipt or possession of child pornography." Iowa Code § 692A.102(1)(a)(1)-(4), (10), (12). Other offenses are not per se sex offenses for which conviction, standing alone, requires registration. Cf. Huss, 688 N.W.2d at 66 (discussing non per se sexually violent offenses). For these offenses, an offender is required to register only if the state proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "a judge or jury" that the offense was "sexually motivated." Iowa Code § 692A.126(1).

The Code lists sixty-seven different offenses that are per se sex offenses. Id. § 692A.102. This case does not involve one of those sixty-seven offenses but instead involves a non-per se sex offense-harassment in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(a)(5). See id. § 692A.126(1)(f); id. § 708.7(5). The Code provides that "[a] person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person," the person "[d]isseminates, publishes, distributes, posts, or causes to be disseminated, published, distributed, or posted a photograph or film showing another person in a state of full or partial nudity or engaged in a sex act, knowing that the other person has not consented to the dissemination, publication, distribution, or posting." Id. § 708.7(1)(a)(5).

The State charged Miller with this offense in April 2021. Miller moved to bifurcate any trial in the case. He argued the adjudication of guilt for the harassment offense should be tried separately from the determination of whether the alleged crime was sexually motivated. He argued these were separate and distinct issues and trying them together would prejudice him in any criminal trial. The district court granted the motion. It reasoned that the "nature of the case . . . favors bifurcation. The essential elements of harassment in the first degree do not implicate sexual motivation." The district court further reasoned that while the crime involved "images of a sexual nature, neither the elements nor the essential facts automatically inure to a sexual motivation. The defendant's motivation may have been sexual, but not sexual gratification." The district court noted that Miller's "motivation may also have been something else entirely different such as revenge or attention."

Although the district court granted Miller's motion to bifurcate the proceedings, there was no trial on the adjudication of guilt; Miller entered a written guilty plea as charged. The guilty plea provided Miller with notice that he could be placed on the sex offender registry. The guilty plea explained that Miller was entitled to a separate trial "on the sole question of whether this crime was 'sexually motivated.'" The guilty plea further provided that the issue of sexual motivation would be tried to the court rather than a jury. The guilty plea provided that the court "may consider [Miller's] statements in this plea in making that determination." In the written guilty plea, Miller admitted the following:

That between May and July of 2019, I was in a relationship with [J.G.]. Our relationship ended on bad terms. I had in my possession a video recording of [J.G.] and myself engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about September of 2019, I posted the video on the internet. I knew [J.G.] had not consented to the posting of the video. My intent was to get back at her for our relationship ending on bad terms by annoying her with the video being public. The video was posted while I was in Boone County Iowa.

The written guilty plea also provided that Miller did not admit "that [he] committed this crime because [he] was 'sexually motivated.'" The district court accepted the plea and set the matter for sentencing.

While the harassment case was pending, Miller was charged with separate crimes in February 2022. He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(a) (2022), and possession of a controlled substance, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). Miller pleaded guilty to OWI, and the State agreed to dismiss the possession charge. Sentencing for the OWI offense was combined with sentencing on the harassment charge.

At the time set for sentencing, the district court held a combined proceeding. During the first phase of the proceeding, the district court held a trial on the issue of whether Miller's offense was sexually motivated. After the parties presented evidence and argument, the district court proceeded to sentencing.

Although the Code assigns the burden of proof to the State at trial on the issue of sexual motivation, see Iowa Code § 692A.126(1) (2019), the district court had the defense proceed first. Miller called Dr. Tracy Thomas to testify at trial. Dr. Thomas is a board-certified forensic psychologist. She frequently performs psychological evaluations for use in criminal and civil proceedings. In particular, she performs a variety of evaluations related to sex offenders, including risk assessments and psychosexual evaluations.

Dr Thomas testified about this type of crime generally. She testified this crime was referred to as "revenge porn." Dr. Thomas explained that she had performed research in this area and was "familiar with the research literature." She explained that people engage in this type of crime "for revenge. They are angry. They are upset. They feel like they have been embarrassed, . . . they feel like their self-esteem has taken a hit, so they engage in this behavior as a way to kind of let their anger out to get back at the victim, to embarrass them in the way that the person doing the revenge porn feels they have been embarrassed." At bottom, the crime "is really based on anger and revenge." Dr. Thomas testified that it would be "atypical" for this type of crime to be sexually motivated. To determine whether this type of crime was sexually motivated, Dr. Thomas testified she would look at...