STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. JAMES LEROY HULS , Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-1027 / 08-0110
Filed February 19, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMES LEROY HULS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, John D. Ackerman,
Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence of lascivious conduct with
a minor, contending (1) the State presented insufficient evidence that the girl was
disrobed or partially disrobed and (2) the $250 fine was not authorized by statute.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Thomas Gaul, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, and Coleman McAllister, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, P.J.
James Huls photographed an eleven-year-old girl in different outfits that
he provided. The State charged him with lascivious conduct with a minor. Iowa
Code § 709.14 (2005).1 Prior to a bench trial, the State and Huls agreed the
State would have to prove the following:
1. On or about November 5, 2006, in Sioux County, Iowa,
Defendant did force, persuade, or coerce [H.C.], with or without
her consent, to disrobe or partially disrobe.
2. At that time Defendant was over age 18 and in a position of
authority over the victim.
3. [H.C.] was a minor.
4. Defendant did so with the purpose of arousing or satisfying the
sexual desires of either the Defendant or [H.C.].
The district court concluded that the State met its burden of proof on all four
elements. The court found Huls guilty as charged and imposed sentence, which
included a civil penalty of $250 pursuant to Iowa Code section 692A.6.
On appeal, Huls contends (1) the State presented insufficient evidence
that the girl was “disrobed or partially disrobed when viewed by [him]” and (2) the
$250 civil penalty was not authorized by statute.
I.
We review Huls’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence for errors of
law, with the district court’s fact-findings binding us if supported by substantial
evidence. State v. Bass, 349 N.W.2d 498, 500 (Iowa 1984).
The district court made detailed findings of fact supported by a credibility
finding. We find it unnecessary to repeat or summarize those findings. Because
1
Iowa Code section 709.14 provides:
It is unlawful for a person over eighteen years of age who is in a position
of authority over a minor to force, persuade, or coerce a minor, with or
without consent, to disrobe or partially disrobe for the purpose of arousing
or satisfying the sexual desires of either of them.
3
they are supported by more than the requisite quantum of evidence, we uphold
them.
As part of his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, Huls also contends
the statute contains an implicit requirement that he “observe [the child] in a state
of disrobement or partial disrobement.”
However, section 709.14 does not
contain a “viewing” requirement. Cf. Iowa Code § 709.9 (requiring exposure of
genitals or sexual act “in the presence or view of a third person”). As the district
court stated:
If the defendant’s interpretation of the statute is correct, a
person could not be convicted if he/she persuaded a minor in
another room to take all their clothes off and then exit the room and
appear in front of the adult in a nude or partially nude state. This is
not a common sense interpretation of the provision of section
709.14. Nor does it make sense in a case like this one, where an
adult persuades a minor in another room to disrobe and put on
clothes which exposes the minor’s breasts, legs and thighs and
then exit the room at the defendant’s request so that the adult is
able to observe the minor, all of which is done with the specific
intent of arousing or satisfying his/her sexual desires. Common
sense tells us that what the statute requires is that the arousal be
the result of the disrobing; i.e., what the defendant is able to see
after the disrobing, not the physical motions of taking off the
clothes.
We discern no error in this reasoning and affirm the conviction.
II.
Huls next argues that the $250 penalty was not authorized by statute. The
State agrees. Iowa Code section 692A.6(2) authorizes a civil penalty of $200
rather than $250. Therefore, we remand for resentencing as to this penalty only.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
