Judge declines to dismiss sexual registry charges

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com 

A Charles City man fighting a requirement to register as a sexual offender had several motions turned down by a district court judge at a pre-trial hearing Tuesday.

Douglas Lindaman, age 63, is facing two charges of failure to register, following a conviction last April of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, an aggravated misdemeanor.

District Court Judge Peter Newell at the hearing Tuesday turned down two motions to dismiss the charges of failure to register, and declined to rule that the sexual offender registry itself is unconstitutional, as had been argued by Lindaman.

Newell also declined to allow Lindaman to mail a list of 60 questions regarding their views on sexuality to prospective jurors before jury selection for the trial, currently scheduled to begin Feb. 28 in Butler County.

A Cerro Gordo County jury returned the verdict of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse on April 13, 2018, at the end of the third trial Lindaman faced on an original charge of sexual abuse in the third degree.

He was convicted of that felony charge in 2016 and sentenced to serve up to 10 years in prison, but that conviction was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court in 2017. A retrial on the charge, moved to Franklin County on a change of venue, resulted in a mistrial in February last year.

The third trial, moved to Cerro Gordo County, resulted in the guilty verdict on the less serious charge.

As a result of that conviction, Lindaman was sentenced to up to two years in prison, various fines and fees, life registration on the state sexual offenders registry and a special 10-year probation for persons convicted of sexual crimes.

Lindaman is appealing that verdict and sentence.

As part of the appeal process, Lindaman paid an appeal bond that postponed the time he would need to report to prison or pay the fines until the appeal is decided. He also argued that the appeal relieves him of the requirement to register on the sexual offenders registry.

But Floyd County Attorney Rachel Ginbey, who filed the two charges of failure to register, argued that Iowa court rulings in a case called Maxwell v. Iowa Department of Public Safety had determined that the registration requirement became effective upon conviction, regardless of appeal status.

Lindaman said the Maxwell decision did not apply in his case.

“Since the sentence or conviction was set aside by the appeal bond, I am not within the requirements of the registry pursuant to the definition of ‘convicted,’” he said in court Tuesday.

Judge Newell said, “I think, Mr. Lindaman, you have completely misread the decision in Maxwell. I think Maxwell is completely applicable to your case. I don’t think there is a question that you were convicted. The conviction has not been set aside.

“In the event that you would be successful on your appeal, then you would no longer be required to register as a sex offender. Pending appeal, you are required to register and I don’t think that’s an issue,” Newell said.

In arguing for his list of 60 questions for potential jurors, Lindaman said, “Since this is a trial involving sexuality, those questions would aid the defense in being able to choose a jury which is impartial, especially when sexual matters can be inflamed.

“Those questions are not dirty questions. They’re not questions which are intended to embarrass anyone,” he said.

Lindaman said allowing the questionnaire to be mailed in advance would give him time to collate the answers, and in the end would speed up jury selection.

Ginbey said she would resist mailing out the questionnaire.

“The state doesn’t feel that that really is relevant to any of the issues that we have in this case, and any of the questions just aren’t relevant to the issues that have to be decided,” she said.

Newell said he didn’t think the questions would be relevant to prospective jurors’ qualifications to be on the jury, and he ruled against submitting them.