State of Iowa v. Joseph Danniel Hill

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-2073
Filed April 9, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOSEPH DANNIEL HILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Adria Kester,

Judge.

The defendant challenges his convictions for two counts of second-degree

sexual abuse, four counts of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury, and one

count of child endangerment, arguing his motion for mistrial should have been

granted and insufficient evidence supports the convictions. AFFIRMED.

Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro Law, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and

Sandy, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

A jury found Joseph Hill guilty of two counts of second-degree sexual abuse,

four counts of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury, and one count of child

endangerment—the charges involved five different children to whom Hill was a

father figure.1 Hill challenges his convictions on appeal, arguing (1) his motion for

mistrial should have been granted after a witness from the Iowa Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS) testified about a “founded” child abuse

assessment on the same allegations that were the basis for one of the criminal

charges and (2) there is not substantial evidence supporting his convictions.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In late April 2022, Annabel (then eight years old) told her school counselor

that Hill would have her and her siblings sit on the counter, tell them to close their

eyes and open up for a hot dog, and then would put his penis in their mouths. The

school counselor reported the allegation to HHS.

Tina Sells, a child protective worker with HHS who performed the

investigation into the allegation, was familiar with the family. She and her

colleagues had already conducted twenty-six other child-abuse assessments on

them. Based on one of those earlier assessments, the children were removed

from Hill and their mother for lack of supervision and failure to meet the children’s

needs. During that removal the children were placed in the home of their

1 To maintain the minor children’s privacy and for ease of reading, we used a

random-name generator to replace the children’s real names. From the oldest
child to the youngest, we use the following pseudonyms: Annabel, Brittney, Carl,
Darius, and Elisa.
3

grandparents, where they were happy and well-cared for. That HHS case was

eventually closed, and the children were returned to their mother and Hill.

A few days after Annabel’s allegation, the children were taken to a child

protection center (CPC) for a forensic interview and a medical examination. During

the medical examination, Annabel told the nurse practitioner that Hill’s “private

part” touched her mouth and said it happened more than one time. Brittney (then

seven years old) reported that Hill “put[] his no-no square in [her] mouth.” When

asked what a “no-no square” was, Brittney pointed to her genitals. Brittney said it

happened a lot over a long time—“even when [she] was four.” She also told the

nurse practitioner that Hill “chokes her.”2 When asked for more details, Brittney

described Hill putting his arm around her neck and squeezing it; she said she would

cry and tell him to stop but he would not listen. During his examination, Carl (then

six years old) told the nurse practitioner that he thought he was there because Hill

no longer lived in the home with them. When asked what was happening, Carl told

her, “He’s been hitting us, so maybe that.” Carl described being hit “real hard” as

punishment and reported it sometimes left bruises; he said he felt safer in the home

without Hill there.

2 We recognize the correct terminology for what Brittney and the other children

described would be “strangle.” See Mary Pat Gunderson, Gender and the
Language of Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1, 11 (2019)
(discussing how language matters and noting that describing acts of strangulation
as “choking” can minimize or mitigate). Because the children consistently used
the word “choke,” we use that term throughout this ruling.
4

Hill was charged with crimes in three separate cases, which were later

consolidated into one. He maintained his innocence, and the consolidated case

with thirteen criminal charges was tried to a jury in October 2023.3

At trial, Hill’s theory of the case was that Annabel was tired of living in the

family’s squalid home,4 where she was often forced to take care of the younger

children. Hill suggested that based on her familiarity with HHS, Annabel convinced

her siblings to make false allegations against him so the children would be

removed and could return to living with their grandparents.

The school counselor testified that Annabel “was very upset, she was

scared” as she told her about Hill’s actions. Annabel said she was telling because

she wanted her brother and sister to be safe; she also told the counselor she did

not want to be removed from the family home because she was afraid the siblings

would be separated if that happened. During the same discussion, Annabel

expressed fear she would be harmed for telling the counselor.

During her testimony, Annabel admitted she did not like living in the family

home because “[i]t was not very clean. It was trashy and it had dog poop

3 Hill was charged with three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, four

counts of child endangerment causing bodily injury (class “D” felonies), two counts
of child endangerment (aggravated misdemeanors), and four counts of exploitation
of a minor.
Before submitting the case to the jury, the district court merged the two
counts of child endangerment—leaving the jury twelve counts to decide.
The jury acquitted Hill of one count of sexual abuse in the second degree
and all four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. We do not discuss the
allegations that were the basis for these charges.
4 It was undisputed that the home was dirty and unkempt, with animal feces and

bed begs in the home. The children did not have clean or weather-appropriate
clothing and were often hungry; teachers at their school laundered their clothes,
purchased them necessary clothing items, and set food aside for them to eat.
5

everywhere—or dog poop and cat poop.” She explained that if she did not do as

she was told, Hill would either spank or choke her. She described the choking as

Hill putting an arm around her neck and said it happened “a lot of times.” When

Hill choked her, she “wouldn’t be able to see anything besides pitch black.” When

asked how she would “wake up,” Annabel said, “It—kind of just, like, the breath

came into you.” She also saw Hill choke Carl, Brittney, and Darius (who was four

years old in April 2022). Annabel also described Hill “put[ting] a blindfold over [her]

eyes and tak[ing her] into the bathroom [where] he would—he would take his

private and he would put it in [her] mouth.” Annabel confirmed that she meant

Hill’s penis when she said “private.”

Annabel was asked if she lied so she would not have to live with Hill

anymore. She responded she “did lie but it wasn’t huge lies.” She denied lying

about him choking her, choking her siblings, or putting his penis in her mouth.

Annabel also admitted that she came up with a plan with Brittney and Carl so they

would not have to live with Hill anymore. She testified, “I told them that where we

were living is wrong and that I would like to live with Grandma and Grandpa. So I

wanted like—I wanted us to go back to Grandma and Grandpa’s so I kind of made

kind of a plan . . . .” Annabel’s plan was not for the children to lie—the plan was to

tell adults what was going on the family home. On direct examination, Annable

testified:

Q. Was your plan to lie? A. No.
Q. Was your plan to tell people what was going on at your
house? A. Yes.
Q. That it was dirty? A. [The witness nodded her head
affirmatively.] And wasn’t a very good environment to live—live in.
Q. Was part of your plan to tell people about Mr. Hill choking
you? A. Yes, it was to tell them that—how my—like how it—how it
6

is. Like what was happening in the house and to, like, answer their
questions.
Q. And was any part of that plan to lie to adults about what
was going on? A. No.
Q. Would that be wrong? A. It would be wrong if I would lie.
Q. So, [Annabel], were you just ready to leave the house and
feel safe again? A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t want to leave your mom’s house because at [the
grandparents’ home], you’d get clean clothes? A. Yes.
Q. Was that the only reason, though? A. No. I felt unsafe for
him choking me and doing those things with his private to me and I
just felt that it was wrong and I didn’t want to live there because I
knew that my grandma and grandpa would always have their door
open for me.
....
Q. . . .[W]e talked about . . . your plan to not live with [Hill] and
[the mother] anymore. When you talked with your siblings, did you
tell them to lie? A. No.
Q. Did you tell them what to say to people? A. No.
Q. Did you tell them to tell the truth? A. I didn’t tell them, like,
exactly to tell the truth. I just told them, tell them what’s happening,
what’s happening at the house, and what has happened.

Brittney also testified at trial; she described Hill putting his arm around her

neck and choking her, which would cause her to “fall asleep.” She saw Hill do the

same to the other children—to Annabel and Carl more than one time, while Darius

“barely got choked” and Elisa (who was two years old in April 2022) “only got

choked, like, once.” Brittney testified that Hill “would show [her] his private and he

would put it in [her] mouth.”

The State introduced evidence of two videos where Hill hit Elisa in the

stomach a total of more than twenty times. Hill suggested these were play-hits

that did not harm Elisa, while the State argued the video showed Elisa unable to

catch her breath and—based on the sound from the hits—showed there was force

behind them. The State also introduced a photograph of Darius with a red face

and lower ear with text over it that stated, “Yup bc [Darius] threw a hanger at tubbs.”
7

Hill was asked about this while being interviewed by an investigator—the video of

the interview was played for the jury. Hill admitted making contact with Darius’s

face before the photo was taken. He stated he “tried to pop him in the mouth for

some discipline” and inadvertently “caught his cheek” when Darius moved his

head.

The jury found Hill guilty of seven of the thirteen charges: two counts of

second-degree sexual abuse (one involving Annabel and one involving Brittney);

four counts of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury (one count each

involving Annabel, Brittney, Carl, and Darius); and one count of child

endangerment involving Elisa. At sentencing, the district court ordered Hill to serve

all seven sentences concurrently, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed

twenty-five years with a 70% mandatory minimum.

Hill appeals.

II. Discussion.

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence.5

Hill challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting all seven of his

convictions.6 But we do not consider Hill’s arguments. While he recites the scope

5 We take Hill’s claims in a different order than he presented them. We address
the claim of insufficient evidence first because, if successful, Hill would be entitled
to a remand for entry of acquittal, making the question of whether he should receive
a new trial moot. See State v. Trane, 934 N.W.2d 447, 455 (Iowa 2019) (“If the
trial record would not support a conviction on a given count, [the defendant] is
entitled to an acquittal on that count, and further proceedings on that count must
come to an end.”).
6 Hill moved for a new trial raising weight-of-the-evidence concerns focused on the

credibility of the children. Although this challenge involved a different standard,
Hill’s theme was that judgment should not be entered because the three children
made up stories so they could move back with their grandparents. In denying the
motion for new trial, the court commented that this theory was not credible; the
8

and standard of review with cites to authority, the substance of Hill’s argument

covers more than five pages, which are without any cites to the record or

references to authority. Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3)

requires the appellant’s brief to include:

An argument containing the appellant’s contentions and the
reasons for them with citations to the authorities relied on and
references to the pertinent parts of the record in accordance with
rule 6.904(4). No authorities or argument may be incorporated into
the brief by reference to another document. Failure to cite authority
in support of an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.

Due to Hill’s failure to comply with rule 6.903(2)(a)(8)(3), we find his arguments

waived and do not consider them.

B. Motion for Mistrial.

During her testimony, HHS worker Sells testified about her involvement with

the family and explained that in March 2022, HHS received allegations that the

condition of the home was unfit and that Hill had physically abused Darius. On

direct examination, the following exchange occurred:

Q. Okay. And let’s talk about specifically this assessment that
you began in March of 2022. You testified earlier that it was due to
possible physical abuse allegations and conditions of the home. Can
you tell me what your first step was in your investigation? A. For
those allegations?
Q. Yes. A. So I went out and, you know, met with the mom,
met with [Hil], met with the kids, discussed the physical abuse
allegation, which I founded.

Hill immediately objected; he argued it was inappropriate for the jury to hear that

HHS believed the allegations had merit and asked the court to strike the testimony.

case hinged on “whether it is a credible notion that three children—all of whom
were eight years old or younger when the offenses occurred—could fabricate and
execute a plan to have themselves or their stepfather removed from the home,”
and the court noted that the jury found the child witnesses credible.
9

The prosecutor agreed that the statement should be stricken, and the court told

the jury, “Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I want you to disregard the last answer

by the witness.”

The court then took a break so Hill could speak with defense counsel. After

the break, Hill moved for a mistrial. The State resisted. It conceded HHS’s

determination in a particular investigation is not admissible evidence but

maintained a mistrial was unnecessary because the prejudice was minimal. The

State noted Sell’s statement about the “founded” report involved the allegation Hill

physically abused Darius. The State argued it had had strong evidence in support

of that allegation. After considering the issue, the district court denied the motion

to suppress.

On appeal, Hill challenges the district court’s ruling. He suggests State v.

Huston, 825 N.W.2d 531 (Iowa 2013) stands for the proposition that it is always

reversible error when a jury hears that HHS issued a “founded” child abuse

assessment. We disagree.

In Huston, the district court admitted testimony from the HHS worker over

the defendant’s objection that the worker “founded” two separate child abuse

reports, specifically one that pertained to Huston. 825 N.W.2d at 535. In other

words, the jury was allowed to use evidence of the founded report in making its

determination whether the defendant was guilty of child endangerment causing

serious injury. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued the jury should not have been

allowed to consider the evidence, and our supreme court agreed. Id. at 537. It

concluded there was “no probative value to the [HHS] determination the abuse

report against [the defendant] was founded” because it was “irrelevant to any issue
10

for the jury to decide.” Id. at 537. It also cautioned there was “a real danger the

jury will be unfairly influenced by that agency finding, which gives the ‘imprimatur’

of a purportedly unbiased state agency on a conclusion that [the defendant] was

guilty of child abuse.” Id. at 537–38. Because the evidence was unfairly prejudicial

to the defendant, it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to admit it. See

id. at 539. And with the admission of improper evidence, prejudice to the defendant

was presumed. Id. Because the State could not overcome that presumption on

appeal to show it was harmless error for the jury to hear there was a founded

report, the defendant in Huston was entitled to a new trial. Id. Although it was not

requested, the Huston court noted, “We do not believe it would have been proper

in this case to allow testimony that the child abuse report was determined to be

founded even with a limiting instruction” that might explain the different standards

and burdens of proof related to an administrative action. Id. Likewise, because

the risk of unfair prejudice was “exacerbated” by further testimony over the

defendant’s ability to appeal the HHS ruling to overturn the founded report,

“prejudice [was] presumed, and the State [bore] the burden of showing lack of

prejudice.” Id. (citation omitted).

In contrast, at Hill’s trial, the district court (and the State) recognized Sells’s

statement about the founded report was inadmissible. The court immediately

struck the statement by telling the jury to disregard Sells’s last answer, thus not

drawing undue attention to it—the jury was not allowed to consider evidence of the

“founded” report when deciding Hill’s guilt. And after speaking with the parties, the

court also gave a curative instruction as part of the jury instructions, which stated:
11

Witnesses may have made certain evaluations and reached
certain conclusions in performing their jobs separate and apart from
the jury’s function. As the sole factfinder of the court, you may not
accept any lower standard of proof adopted by [HHS] or adopted by
law enforcement in the course of investigating allegations against
[Hill].

The question before us is different than the question in Huston—was Hill

denied a fair trial because the jury heard Sells mention a “founded” report even

though it was told not to consider that evidence when deciding whether Hill was

guilty? See State v. Brown, 996 N.W.2d 691, 696 (Iowa 2023) (“The defendant is

only entitled to a new trial if the prejudice resulting from the denial [of a motion for

mistrial] prevented the defendant from having a fair trial.”). Here, Hill must “show

sufficient prejudice to constitute denial of a fair trial.” State v. Belieu, 288 N.W.2d

895, 900 (Iowa 1980).

In deciding the answer to that question, we note our review of the district

court’s denial of a motion for mistrial is for an abuse of discretion. See Brown, 996

N.W.2d at 696. And “a district court’s decision not to grant a mistrial but to offer a

cautionary instruction instead is entitled to broad deference.” State v. Plain, 898

N.W.2d 801, 815 (Iowa 2017). “Cautionary instructions are sufficient to mitigate

prejudicial impact of inadmissible evidence ‘in all but the most extreme cases.’” Id.

(citation omitted). And this is not one of those extreme cases. As already stated,

the jury was told to disregard the statement when it was made and was also later

instructed against relying on any HHS assessment. See State v. Hanes, 790

N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2010) (recognizing the supreme court has “found harmless

error when the trial court struck erroneously admitted evidence from the record and

immediately admonished the jury to disregard the evidence”); State v. Becker, 818
12

N.W.2d 135, 162 (Iowa 2012) (“[J]uries are presumed to follow the court’s

instructions.”). And here, the statement regarding the founded report involved only

one of the thirteen charges against Hill—the allegation he committed child

endangerment resulting bodily injury against Darius. Even more, the State’s

evidence for that charge was strong; it included video where Hill admitted to an

investigator that he hit Darius in the face when he was intended to “pop him” in the

mouth and a picture showing injury to Darius’s face after the hit.

The inadvertent statement about a “founded” child abuse report, which was

quickly struck from the record and which the jury was told not to consider, did not

prejudice Hill. And the evidence in support of the related criminal charge was

strong. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s

motion for mistrial.

III. Conclusion.

We do not consider Hill’s claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence,

and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motion for mistrial.

We affirm his convictions.

AFFIRMED.