State of Iowa
v.
Kevin Jacob Muehlenthaler
Appellee
State of Iowa
Appellant
Kevin Jacob Muehlenthaler
Attorney for the Appellee
Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General
Attorney for the Appellant
Joseph R. Cahill
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van Marel, District Associate Judge. AFFIRMED. Heard by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ. Opinion by Mullins, J. (23 pages)
Kevin Muehlenthaler appeals his convictions of three counts of sexual exploitation by a school employee. Muehlenthaler contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to: (1) the State’s misstatement to the jury about Muehlenthaler’s plea; (2) testimony about Muehlenthaler’s alleged use of racially insensitive comments; (3) the State’s questions which amounted to backdoor hearsay; (4) expert testimony provided by a non-expert; (5) the State’s violation of its own motion in limine; and (6) the State’s statements on Muehlenthaler’s failure to testify or produce evidence. Muehlenthaler also claims the trial court erred in admitting into evidence statements he made during a school investigation, in violation of Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). OPINION HOLDS: We find two of Muehlenthaler’s four claims were not impermissible backdoor hearsay therefore defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. We also find the State was entitled to redirect examination of a police detective on DNA evidence and the examination was properly within the scope of the defense’s cross-examination. Further, to the extent her testimony might be considered expert testimony, it was based on her training and experience and was limited in scope, therefore defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge expert testimony. We also find the State’s statements did not shift the burden of proof to Muehlenthaler or refer to his decision not to testify, therefore his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object. We preserve the remainder of Muehlenthaler’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as we find the record inadequate to address the issues. We find no Garrity violation.
