Dennis Vrba appealed his conviction for indecent exposure. He asserted in his appeal that insufficient evidence supported his conviction and that the district court erred in not giving more weight to his character witnesses. In the review by the Iowa Court of Appeals, it was concluded substantial evidence supported each element of the crime. Further, the court discerned no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit the character opinion but to essentially afford it no weight.
The district court made the following pertinent findings:
The men’s locker room of a YMCA houses a sauna with a transparent glass door. A janitor cleaning the locker room saw a naked man inside the sauna. The man was engaging in a sex act with another man. The janitor noticed a cosmetic bag on the bench near the sauna that he knew belonged to Vrba.
Several days later, the janitor was again cleaning the locker room when he again saw two men performing sex acts in the sauna. He identified one of the men as Vrba. The janitor testified these acts, like the one he witnessed earlier, offended him. Vrba was subsequently questioned by police. He admitted his involvement in both incidents.
These fact findings are supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, they are essentially undisputed.
This brings us to the disputed issue: Vrba’s knowledge that his conduct could offend a viewer. The district court determined Vrba knew or reasonably should have known the act was offensive to a third-party based on: (1) his request to have officers question him outside the presence of his wife, (2) his request to keep the incident from the media, and (3) his delay in informing his wife.
(Vrba back-pedaled from some of his pretrial statements to police, but transcripts of those recorded statements were admitted at trial, and as the district court found, they unequivocally established key elements of the crime.)
In connection with another element, the court also noted Vrba “verbalized ‘precautions’ that he undertook to avoid others seeing his sexual behavior and acknowledged that being observed by another would upset him, and possibly disgust the other person.” The court further found Vrba “knew that he could be seen out of the sauna.” Substantial evidence supports these fact-findings. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining Vrba knew or reasonably should have known his sexual activity was offensive to a viewer.
Vrba called an expert to render a professional opinion about his character traits. The expert stated he spoke to Vrba on thirteen occasions following the incidents in question. Over the State’s objection, the district court allowed the expert to testify on a limited basis about Vrba’s quiet, non-exhibitionist nature. The expert stated Vrba was “gentle as a lamb.”
In its findings and conclusions, the court essentially discounted the expert’s testimony on the ground he never discussed the specifics of the YMCA incidents with Vrba. Vrba contended the district court “failed to properly consider” this character evidence.
The appeals court discerned no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit the character opinion but to essentially afford it no weight. The opinion was based on sessions beginning three months after the second incident, added little if anything to lay testimony about Vrba’s good character, and “came close to impermissible vouching for the credibility of a witness.”
Vrba was found guilty of two counts of indecent exposure on November 1, 2013. He was forced to register as a sex offender, given suspended 35 jail sentences and placed on a year of probation. He was also ordered to pay $3,692.00 in fines and court fees.
CAUGHT IN SEX ACT AT MASON CITY YMCA
What people do behind closed doors is their own business. But when they start doing it in public, then there’s a problem. If these men wanted to engage in any sexual activity outside of their homes, theu could have taken it somewhere else, like a hotel. Not at the Y, where children are. There’s always the Ashley Inn.
If it was such a clever idea, why didn’t they go play “mumbly peg” at the ice cream shop??
Would he want his customers watching someone get “coned” in his ice cream shop? Sprinkles are for winners and of course, extra.
How does a character witness change the facts that a janitor saw this guy perform a homosexual act twice in the same place. I would wonder how many times he did it before he was caught.