State of Iowa v. Ivan Samuel Brammer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0127
Filed January 9, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

IVAN SAMUEL BRAMMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County,

Richard H. Davidson, Judge.

A criminal defendant appeals his convictions for murder in the second

degree, abuse of a corpse, and theft in the second degree. AFFIRMED.

Krisanne C. Weimer of Weimer Law, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Kevin Cmelik, Special Counsel, for

appellee.

Heard by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

BULLER, Judge.

Ivan Brammer appeals his convictions for second-degree murder, abuse of

a corpse, and second-degree theft, related to the killing of his on-and-off girlfriend

Ilene Gowan. Brammer argues prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair

trial, that the jury instructions on territorial jurisdiction misstated the law, and that

the district court abused its discretion when imposing consecutive sentences.

Limiting our review to the errors preserved for review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The day before Valentine’s Day in 2023, Ilene1 went missing. Brammer and

Ilene had been in a relationship described by Ilene’s daughter as “very unhealthy”

and “on and off.” Ilene’s manager similarly described the relationship as a “roller

coaster, [with] ups and downs.” Before Ilene’s disappearance, she and Brammer

had been fighting so much that Ilene’s daughter—who the two were living with—

asked them to move out. Brammer and Ilene moved in with Brammer’s adult

granddaughter, but then Ilene and Brammer had a fight. Brammer asked Ilene to

leave, and she stayed for a couple days with Michael Brockman, a male

acquaintance.

Ilene and Brammer both worked at Sugars, a Council Bluffs lounge and

diner. The day Ilene disappeared, Ilene’s manager saw her leave at 8:30 a.m.

following her morning cleaning shift; surveillance video shows Ilene leaving the

parking lot in Brammer’s truck. Ilene was normally a very dependable worker and,

when she didn’t show up on time for her 2:00 p.m. shift later that day, her manager

1 We refer to Ilene by first name because of the shared surnames and family

relationships of trial witnesses.
3

sent a text message to Ilene’s phone number. Ilene didn’t reply, so the manager

reached out to Brammer. “Very quickly” after messaging Brammer, the manager

received a reply from Ilene’s number: “I’m done, leave me alone.” The manager

didn’t think this sounded like Ilene at all and, when Ilene never came in for her shift,

the manager grew suspicious someone else had texted her using Ilene’s phone.

Ilene’s daughter reported her missing that night. Brammer made inconsistent

statements to his family about when he last saw Ilene, initially telling his son that

“some girl” picked Ilene up from Sugars, then that he dropped her off at

Brockman’s, and later that he dropped her off on the side of the road near

Brockman’s but not at his house.

Police first spoke with Brammer on February 15, and he told officers he

picked Ilene up at Sugars and took her straight to Brockman’s. In a second

interview two days later, Brammer said he took Ilene to her mother’s house and

then to Brockman’s. But police were not able to verify Brammer’s claim he dropped

Ilene off at Brockman’s, despite checking video from public works, traffic, and

security cameras. In a third interview a week later, Brammer said he took Ilene to

Carter Lake before taking her back to Brockman’s. Despite being confronted with

evidence during these interviews, Brammer denied any recollection of driving

across the river into Omaha or driving into rural Pottawattamie County near

Treynor. There were inconsistencies among Brammer’s statements. As police put

it, whenever they reinterviewed him, Brammer’s “story changed again.”

Surveillance video and cell-tower data aligned with bits and pieces of

Brammer’s version of events, while also placing him in Omaha and near Treynor

where Ilene’s body was later found. On February 13, video surveillance footage
4

spotted Brammer picking Ilene up at Sugars at 8:32 a.m., with Ilene at her mother’s

apartment at 8:45 a.m., at apartments near Sugars at 9:10 a.m., and then

westbound toward Omaha at 9:28 a.m. There was about an hour-long gap in the

footage between Brammer and Ilene going westbound toward Nebraska at 9:28

a.m. and then eastbound back into Council Bluffs at 10:24 a.m. Cell-tower data

established that, during this gap, Ilene’s phone and Brammer’s phone were

traveling together across the river to a park area near Carter Lake, bordering

Nebraska and Iowa, where they remained until 10:17 a.m. At about 10:30 a.m.,

surveillance footage showed Brammer in the drive-thru of a Council Bluffs Burger

King. Ilene can be seen in the passenger seat, but police described her as

“unnatural and unmoving” while Brammer was breathing heavily. Footage then

captured Brammer driving eastbound with Ilene still unnaturally positioned in the

passenger seat, before heading north, stopping at a gas station, and driving out

on the highway near Treynor at 11:46 a.m. and back at 12:34 p.m. Ilene and

Brammer’s phones were traveling together, and both were in use around Treynor

for about half an hour starting at 12:34 p.m. Brammer was seen on surveillance

footage back at his apartment by 12:59 p.m., tossing something in the apartment

dumpster. And both phones were again together at Brammer’s residence—at one

point connected to the same tower—during the evening of February 14.

The subsequent police investigation revealed that, two days after Ilene

disappeared, Brammer deposited $1200 cash into his bank account. Brammer

told a deputy sheriff the money came from “selling tools on Facebook

marketplace,” but Brammer’s son testified he was responsible for storing

Brammer’s tools and they hadn’t sold any around the time Ilene disappeared.
5

Brammer eventually admitted in a police interview that a small black safe Ilene was

seen carrying in surveillance footage on February 13 contained several hundred

dollars cash.

On February 19, Brammer’s granddaughter called police for a welfare check

on him. In her words:

he kept telling me how he was going to kill himself, and so he gave
me a hug and kiss goodbye and then he walked out the door. And I
started freaking out and then he sent messages to the whole family
saying I love you, and stuff like that, and so we called because we
thought he would commit suicide.

Brammer’s granddaughter also observed that he was abusing alcohol and

“angrier” since Ilene disappeared. At some point around this time—after Ilene went

missing—Brammer’s granddaughter also saw him with Ilene’s phone, which she

had never observed before.

A few days after the welfare check, police attempted to approach Brammer

to follow up on Ilene’s investigation. Brammer eluded officers in a high-speed

chase through a residential neighborhood, traveling in excess of fifty miles per

hour. He was arrested a few days later, but his granddaughter posted his bond.

The day after he bonded out, Brammer asked his granddaughter to follow

him to a salvage yard because he “wanted to crush his truck.” He said it was

“knocking” (making noises), but his granddaughter never heard any of the so-

called “knocking.” After crushing the truck at the salvage yard, Brammer told his

granddaughter that, if police asked what happened to the truck, she should tell

them she didn’t know where it was. The same day, Brammer pawned a diamond

earring Ilene had given him as a symbol of commitment.
6

The next day, a Pottawattamie County deputy sheriff responded to a 911

call reporting a “dead body” near Treynor. The deputy found Ilene’s corpse off the

side of the highway and observed there “appeared to be a ligature mark on her

neck mid throat around the thyroid area.”

An associate state medical examiner performed an autopsy. The

pathologist found lacerations, contusions, and abrasions all over Ilene’s body—

including her scalp, head, face, right ear, neck, arms, thighs, legs, chest, back, and

hip—and multiple fractured teeth. The pathologist also spotted an abrasion on

Ilene’s neck but no injuries to the internal neck musculature. The associate

medical examiner ruled the cause and manner of death “undetermined,”

essentially saying she did not have enough evidence or information to render an

opinion. A second pathologist in the medical examiner’s office signed a “quality

assurance” slip for these findings.

Unsatisfied with the undetermined findings, Ilene’s family hired Dr. Michael

Baden—described at trial as an “infamous” and nationally recognized

pathologist—to review the case and offer a second opinion. Dr. Baden’s career in

forensic pathology stretches fifty years, including stints as the Chief Medical

Examiner for New York City and as the Chief Forensic Pathologist for the New

York State Police. And he has worked on and testified in several high-profile

matters. Dr. Baden estimated he had performed more than 20,000 autopsies and,

in his current private practice, testified roughly equally for the prosecution and

defense. He explained that he believed his fee—a sum of $17,000 for his trial

testimony and report—was reasonable given his expertise.
7

After reviewing the Iowa pathologist’s work and photographs of the autopsy,

Dr. Baden opined that Ilene was killed by “traumatic asphyxia due to neck

compression” and the manner of death was homicide. Dr. Baden concluded that

Ilene’s killer had essentially strangled her with the zippered jacket she was found

wearing, as evidenced by a “zipper imprint” left on the skin of her neck. He also

confirmed and built on the Iowa pathologist’s testimony regarding the blunt-force

injuries, identifying “more than thirty-three separate impacts” on Ilene’s body,

which he opined were evidence of a “struggle in which she was beaten.” Dr. Baden

explained that the level of certainty for pathologists’ opinions varied across the

country, but he held himself to a standard of “more than” or “beyond” 95% certainty.

A jury found Brammer guilty as charged, returning verdicts of murder in the

second degree, a class “B” felony in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.1

and 707.3 (2023); abuse of a corpse, a class “C” felony in violation of

section 708.14(1)(b) and (2); and theft in the second degree, a class “D” felony in

violation of Iowa Code section 714.1(1) and 714.2(2). The district court sentenced

him to consecutive terms in prison for a total indeterminate term of sixty-five years

with a mandatory minimum of thirty-five years. Brammer appeals.

II. Discussion

Brammer raises three categories of appellate challenges: allegations of

prosecutorial misconduct, arguments about the jury instructions on territorial

jurisdiction, and a challenge to the imposition of consecutive sentences. We

address each claim, including embedded issues related to error preservation.
8

A. Prosecutorial Misconduct

As we understand Brammer’s brief, he challenges two groups of statements

from the prosecutors’ opening statement, closing argument, and rebuttal:

• comments he alleges were burden-shifting, such as “[t]he defendant
will have no explanation for why he would have Ilene’s cell phone,”
“nobody asked the question of [the police witnesses] what was done”
in terms of DNA testing, and an observation that the defense had
only offered one exhibit into evidence; and

• argument he alleges vouched or impugned the credibility of a witness
(such as referring to Brockman, the defense’s hypothesized alternate
suspect, as “probably the worst defense scapegoat ever”).

We acknowledge the State’s error-preservation concerns regarding some of these

comments and the lack of contemporaneous reported objections. Sidebars were

taken after some but not all of these statements, and the record was reconstructed

afterward in a way that is not crystal clear, suggesting the court didn’t quite overrule

or sustain some objections but instead directed corrective action by the prosecutor.

We recognize this is doubly problematic in the context of a

prosecutorial-misconduct claim, given the distinction drawn between sustained

and overruled objections: if the objection is sustained, error is only preserved if the

defendant also moves for a mistrial.2 See State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d

180, 209 (Iowa 2013). For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding

2 We recognize the district court was loath to have a reported objection argument

in the midst of closing argument, given logistics with the jury, but recreating the
record after the fact is perilous in other ways. Here, the record made immediately
after closing argument does not indicate the defense made a motion for mistrial,
while it was suggested they did make such a motion when the lawyers summarized
that argument two months later at hearing on the motion for new trial. We have no
way of knowing which recollection is correct—though if we had to choose, we are
inclined to think the more-recent-to-trial recitation of no mistrial motion is more
likely accurate. Given the state of the record, we assume without deciding a
mistrial motion was made.
9

error was preserved on all statements that prompted a sidebar at trial, and we

consider both groups of statements referenced in the appellate briefing. We

cannot consider any objections that were made for the first time in Brammer’s

motion for new trial. See, e.g., State v. Steltzer, 288 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Iowa 1980).

Before us, Brammer only alleges prosecutorial misconduct—not

prosecutorial error. As defined by our supreme court, “prosecutorial misconduct

involves either the prosecutor’s reckless disregard of a duty to comply with the

applicable legal standard or obligation, or a prosecutor’s intentional statements in

violation of an obvious obligation, standard, or applicable rule . . . .” State v.

Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124, 139 (Iowa 2018). Misconduct requires more than

“human error or the exercise of poor judgment.” Id. But it does not necessarily

require bad faith. Id.

We review rulings on alleged prosecutorial misconduct for an abuse of

discretion. Id. at 134. To warrant relief, a criminal defendant must establish both

misconduct (whether reckless or intentional) and that the misconduct was so

prejudicial it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Id. at 138. In assessing the

prejudice prong, we consider five factors:

(1) The severity and pervasiveness of misconduct;
(2) the significance of the misconduct to the central issues in the
case;
(3) the strength of the State’s evidence;
(4) the use of cautionary instructions or other curative measures;
[and]
(5) the extent to which the defense invited the misconduct.

Id. at 140 (citation omitted) (formatted for readability). The ultimate inquiry is

whether “the misconduct resulted in prejudice to such an extent that the defendant

was denied a fair trial.” State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003).
10

Looking first at the allegedly burden-shifting comments, for purposes of

judicial economy we bypass assessing whether they were reckless or intentional

prosecutorial misconduct under existing law—as would be necessary to establish

a claim of prosecutorial misconduct rather than error. And we instead proceed

directly to the fair-trial prejudice analysis, recognizing our supreme court’s

observation that “[p]rejudice can, but usually does not, result from isolated

prosecutorial misconduct.” State v. Anderson, 448 N.W.2d 32, 34 (Iowa 1989).

In reviewing the required considerations, we find the allegedly

burden-shifting statements neither severe nor pervasive—at most a few lines out

of many pages of argument sandwiching a week-long trial. We recognize a

plausible interpretation of the comments relates to the many changing (and false

or misleading) stories Brammer told police and his family, rather than his failure to

testify. In our view, and seemingly the parties’ at trial, the central fighting issue

before the jury was cause and manner of death—not Brammer’s possession of

Ilene’s cell phone or whether certain DNA testing was performed. We also believe

the State presented a compelling albeit circumstantial case against Brammer,

given the extensive surveillance footage and digital forensics, as well as

Brammer’s changing stories, unusual behavior, potential destruction of evidence,

and encouraging his granddaughter to lie to police to thwart the investigation. And

we recognize the jury received the standard instructions on burden of proof,

presumption of innocence, and the defendant’s failure to testify—all of which weigh

against prejudice from the prosecutors’ comments. The same goes for the county

attorney’s own corrective statement that followed an objection (as encouraged or

required by the court):
11

The defense, obviously, has no burden to put any evidence on, but
when they make an argument, they are subject to the same credibility
determinations as anything that the State says. They don’t have to
put on any evidence, they don’t have to ask a question. They don’t
have to do that for any particular witness, but when they stand up
here and ask a question of why you don’t have that evidence when
they have chosen to go a different route, it’s for you to learn the truth
in this case.

Although we might tweak some of this extemporaneous phrasing from the comfort

of appellate review, this corrective statement was a fair statement of established

law. For example, in State v. Davisson, we held the prosecutor did not

impermissibly shift the burden when he argued: “Defense counsel also has an

opportunity, if they bring forth an idea like mistake of fact, to bring people in, to

subpoena people.” No. 15-1893, 2016 WL 7393890, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct. App.

Dec. 21, 2016) (holding “prosecution comments that are aimed at exposing a lack

of evidence to support a defendant’s general theory or a particular proposition are

not improper.” (citing State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 556–57 (Iowa 2010))). In

our assessment of the pertinent factors, we discern no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s handling of Brammer’s burden-shifting objections, and we find

Brammer is owed no relief on appeal.

We analyze the allegedly vouching statements—essentially the

prosecutors’ argument that Brockman was an unconvincing alternative suspect—

first by exploring whether the prosecutors recklessly or intentionally violated

established law. Like all lawyers, prosecutors are entitled to “some latitude” during

closing arguments. State v. Carey, 709 N.W.2d 547, 554 (Iowa 2006) (citation

omitted). And argument based on a “legitimate assessment of the evidence” does

not constitute misconduct just because the comments dip into the “sarcastic and
12

snide.” Id. at 555. A core facet of the defense theory at this trial was to chip away

at Brockman’s alibi. And it was only natural for the State’s attorneys to address

the quality of that alternate-suspect theory in closing argument. See Coleman,

907 N.W.2d at 140 (“[I]t is not prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to make

statements aimed at the theory of the defense . . . .”). We also find the context

surrounding the “scapegoat” comment—grounded in trial testimony regarding

Brockman’s alibi—suggests the comment was fair but colorful commentary on the

evidence. “[W]e have long given prosecutors some leeway for rhetorical flourishes

in closing argument.” State v. Meyer, No. 18-0354, 2019 WL 1933990, at *4 (Iowa

Ct. App. May 1, 2019). And while the prosecutor’s “scapegoat” comments may

have been uncouth, they were the type of sarcastic sass, snide aside, or rhetorical

flourish that does not rise to the level of reckless or intentional misconduct. Last,

while we need not belabor the point, we also recognize Brammer cannot show

fair-trial prejudice on these statements for many of the reasons we have already

discussed in reference to alleged burden-shifting, and this independently compels

us to conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling the

objections.

B. Territorial Jurisdiction

Next, Brammer raises claims related to the jury instructions on territorial

jurisdiction. The context is our statute on territorial jurisdiction in homicide cases,

which provides: “If the body of a murder victim is found within the state, the death

is presumed to have occurred within the state.” Iowa Code § 803.1(2). The State

contests error-preservation, urging the issue advanced on appeal was not

preserved below. We confront this potential barrier to review before going further.
13

At trial, Brammer’s attorney offered two objections to the relevant

instruction: first, that it was “not a model jury instruction”; and second, that the

“presumption language is prejudicial . . . and the jury should be allowed to come

to their conclusion whether the crime was actually committed in this jurisdiction or

not without having any presumption imported to them.” On appeal, the majority of

Brammer’s argument is that the element of territorial jurisdiction had to be included

in the marshaling instruction—not in a separate instruction. See State v. Straw,

185 N.W.2d 812, 816 (Iowa 1971) (holding a marshaling instruction must contain

all essential elements); State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Iowa 1994)

(holding territorial jurisdiction is an essential element). But this objection was not

made below. Brammer’s secondary argument is that the jury should have received

language more like the instruction quoted in Liggins—where the jury was expressly

told the presumption led to a permissive rather than mandatory inference. See

524 N.W.2d at 184–85. That objection was not made below either: Brammer did

not ask for a permissive inference, but instead for “not . . . having any presumption

imported to [the jury],” seemingly in defiance of section 803.1(2). We agree with

the State that Brammer argued “the instruction should not be given,” rather than

requesting language different from a verbatim reproduction of statutory text.

“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily

be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on

appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). This rule extends

to jury instructions, such that an “objection must be sufficiently specific to alert the

trial court to the basis of the complaint so that if error does exist the court may

correct it before placing the case in the hands of the jury.” Moser v. Stallings, 387
14

N.W.2d 599, 604 (Iowa 1986); cf. State v. Davis, 951 N.W.2d 8, 16 (Iowa 2020)

(“[O]ur adversary system imposes the burden upon counsel to make a proper

record to preserve error, if any, in this factual circumstance by specifically objecting

to instructions in their final form, requesting instructions and voicing specific

exception in event they are refused.” (citation omitted)). In other words, if a party

wishes to preserve a complaint about a defective instruction, the district court must

“be given an opportunity to pass upon the objection and correct any error.” See

State v. Dessinger, 958 N.W.2d 590, 598 (Iowa 2021).

This opportunity to correct potential defects matters. Here, it is hard for us

to imagine that, if Brammer had asked for the element of territorial jurisdiction to

appear in each marshaling instruction, the court would not have considered or

accommodated the request. The same likely goes for including the

permissive-inference language from Liggins. We also recognize that this

transcript—like those from many trials—is replete with references to off-the-record

discussions and email correspondence between the parties and the court, and that

it is entirely possible adding this language was considered and declined by

Brammer for tactical reasons. And we are mindful that a litigant should not be

permitted to hedge their bets by spotting potential errors, declining to bring them

to the court’s attention, and gambling on that error as an escape hatch if the verdict

goes sideways. See State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 199 (Iowa 2022).

We are “a court for the correction of errors at law.” Iowa Code

§ 602.5103(1). “If an issue was never presented to the district court to rule on, and

if the district court did not in fact rule on it, we lack any ‘error’ to correct.” State v.

Gomez Medina, 7 N.W.3d 350, 355 (Iowa 2024). “Had the defendant raised the
15

argument, we don’t know how the district court would have ruled on it.” Id.

Because we lack an error to correct, we cannot review Brammer’s complaints

about the marshaling instruction or the permissive-inference language relating to

territorial jurisdiction.

C. Consecutive Sentences

Last, Brammer asserts the district court abused its discretion in imposing

consecutive sentences for the second-degree murder, abuse of a corpse, and

second-degree theft convictions. “[T]he decision of the district court to impose a

particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption

in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the

consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724

(Iowa 2002). “[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by

the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable

grounds.” Id. at 725. Specific to consecutive sentences, the rationale for

consecutive terms may be the same reasons warranting incarceration, but they

must be explicitly stated. See State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016).

Brammer claims that his age and lack of criminal history warranted

concurrent sentences, while the State counters that Brammer committed one of

the most serious crimes in the code when he killed Ilene, followed by an

opportunistic theft of cash and “unceremoniously discard[ing her] body in a known

garbage heap.”

The reasons given by the court at sentencing largely track the State’s

argument on appeal:
16

My reasons for the consecutive sentence is that all three are
separate, distinct and serious crimes separated by time with
separate actions. Mr. Brammer, the overall reason for this sentence,
concerning all three counts, is the cruelty and seriousness of the
crimes, your need and potential for rehabilitation and protect the
community.
You stole Ilene’s life, threw away her lifeless body and then
again stole from her finances. Your senseless and cruel acts have
taken a mother, a daughter, an aunt, and numerous friends.

We discern no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.