Iowa Supreme Court upholds former teacher’s sexual exploitation conviction • Iowa Capital Dispatch

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a former high school teacher for sexual exploitation by a school employee in a 4-3 decision released Friday.

Kari Jean Schwartz was an art teacher at Independence High School in 2009, where she repeatedly had inappropriate interactions with a student identified in court documents as AS.

According to court documents, one day Schwartz confronted AS about why the student was so quiet and reserved in class. Schwartz led AS to the stairwell, where the student sat on a step and Schwartz sat on the step directly behind her. Schwartz then held AS in a “bear hug” and began sexually abusing the student, court documents say.

“Schwartz wrapped one arm around her face and the other ‘sort of down toward (AS’) hip,’ then moved her hand over AS’ ‘clothing to her chest’ and then ‘down toward (AS’) pant hem’ and ‘went under (AS’) clothing toward (her) pubic area,'” AS’s court documents state.

According to court documents, Schwartz did not stop until two students walked up the stairs and Schwartz and AS were at the top.

AS eventually reported the incident to police in 2020. Schwartz was later sentenced in district court to five years in prison and a special term of ten years. Schwartz appealed her conviction to the Iowa Court of Appeals and later to the Iowa Supreme Court.

In her appeal, she claimed her case was prejudiced by the jury being falsely instructed that hugging was a form of sexual conduct and by the failure to consider initial findings from a school investigation into evidence. She also argued there was insufficient evidence to show that her behavior demonstrated a pattern of sexual behavior.

Records: Behavior included chest-to-chest hugs

According to court documents, Schwartz’s interactions with AS began as a normal teacher-student relationship, but after the first month, AS noticed that Schwartz was paying her unusual amounts of attention.

Schwartz talked to AS’s desk more often in the classroom than to others, went into other teachers’ rooms to talk to AS, repeatedly complimented AS on her appearance, hugged her “chest to chest,” and invited herself to places outside of school where she knew AS was, including at one point, AS’s home, according to court documents.

After sending the student a series of text messages declaring her love for her, Schwartz sent her two emails in which she explained in detail that the student could always tell her anything.

“I probably shouldn’t love my students, but I love you,” Schwartz said in an email to AS, according to court documents.

AS printed out the emails at the time and reported them to a teacher, who promised to forward them to the principal. The incident in the stairwell occurred shortly after the emails were reported.

Although AS reported the emails to the school, she did not tell anyone about the incidents in the stairwell at the time, according to court documents.

During the school’s investigation, Schwartz admitted to sending AS text messages, emails and hugs on more than one occasion, according to court documents. Schwartz left her job at the school shortly after the investigation began.

The court wrote that the results of this investigation were not “wrongfully excluded from the case” because the conclusions to be drawn from them were unclear.

In 2018, AS sent an email to the school district where Schwartz then worked, requesting that they fully investigate all complaints made against Schwartz. Two years later, AS said she finally had the courage to “do what should have been done nine years ago” and report Schwartz’s sexual abuse to the police.

AS said that after learning that Schwartz was teaching special education at a new middle school, she felt “a little responsible” for never reporting Schwartz.

Argument revolved around hugging

The Iowa Supreme Court majority did not think the judge was wrong to include hugging in a list of sexual conduct. Schwartz argued that unlike other examples of sexual conduct, hugging requires context to determine whether it is sexual conduct.

The majority opinion says that the statute and the controversial jury instruction “provide that sexual conduct includes touching the ‘clothed or unclothed inner thighs, breasts, groin, buttocks, anus, pubic hair, or genitals.'” However, one can imagine a variety of circumstances (responding to a medical problem at school, treating an athlete, slapping a player on the butt as he enters or leaves a game) in which the other acts listed are not sexual in nature. In other words, almost all of the acts listed are sexual in nature only when viewed in context.

The majority of the judges considered that even if the instructions to the jury had been wrong, this was not enough to overturn the verdict.

“This Court will not overturn the jury’s verdict unless the error was prejudicial,” Iowa Supreme Court Justice Christopher McDonald wrote for the majority.

The dissenting opinions agreed with the majority on all facts of the case except how prejudicial the jury instruction was.

“I am not convinced that the record before us clearly establishes that this instructional error did not cause harm to the defendant,” wrote Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christensen. Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman joined in the dissenting opinion.

“I agree that Schwartz at least exercised poor judgment and engaged in inappropriate communication with AS. But the case centered around hugs and the touching incident on the stairs. Schwartz admitted to hugging AS, but she insisted she was merely trying to comfort AS through those hugs or to pose for photos at the suggestion of others,” Christensen wrote. “When AS was interviewed by police in 2020, she said the hugs did not feel sexual. So there was evidence that the hugs were not sexual.”

Christensen also pointed out that there were conflicting statements about the stairwell incident and “the jury could have had reasonable doubts about whether the sexual touching occurred in the stairwell while at the same time assuming that the hugging occurred.”

She added: “Having learned that the embrace constituted per se sexual conduct under Iowa law, that is, that it was no different from kissing and touching of the genital area, the jury could have concluded that Schwartz was guilty of sexual exploitation without having to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Schwartz’s embrace was in fact sexual in nature.”