Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0756 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Tahjah Lejuan Shepard, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, The Honorable Linda M. Fangman, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Bower, S.J. 1 BOWER, Senior Judge. Tahjah Shepard appeals his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3 (2024) following a jury trial, asserting the district court erred by refusing to allow him to cross-examine the victim regarding the contents of her cell phone. Upon our review, we affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Eleven-year-old N.W. considered Shepard a stepfather. According to N.W.’s testimony and statements to medical personnel, law enforcement, and the Child Protection Center (CPC), the following incident occurred. On the day before Thanksgiving 2024, N.W. and her older brother stayed home from school to assist in caring for their youngest siblings, twin infants. N.W. was sitting on the couch downstairs watching the infants when Shepard came down, stating he was going to help her do the laundry. N.W.’s mother was scheduled to work that afternoon and remained upstairs, asleep. N.W. and Shepard went downstairs to the basement where she moved clothes from the washer to the dryer. Then, Shepard ordered N.W. to be quiet and attempted to remove her sweatpants. Shepard pushed N.W. against a mini refrigerator, located next to the dryer. N.W. attempted to yell; Shepard placed his arm around her neck and told her to “Shut up or I’ll make you go to sleep.” Shepard then attempted to insert his penis into her buttocks. N.W. felt contact and it was painful. Shepard stopped at this point. N.W. saw Shepard with a “yellow wrapper” in his hand, but she could not see it clearly because of how her body was positioned. When Shepard stopped, he stated that this incident was a lesson about boys. 2 N.W. went to the living room and cried on the couch. Shepard told her that she should not tell anyone what happened “because [her] mom let [him] do it.” Shepard went upstairs. N.W. called her grandfather in hopes he would pick her up from the house, but he was at work, so she remained in the living room. When Shepard came back downstairs, he told N.W. to take a shower, which she did, and changed clothes. N.W. then called her mother, who had since left for work, and told her what had happened. N.W.’s mother left work immediately, picked up N.W., and drove to the hospital. N.W. informed a nurse practitioner what occurred, who performed a sexual assault medical forensic examination and collected DNA samples. N.W. then participated in a forensic interview at the CPC. Law enforcement began a criminal investigation and searched the residence, collecting evidence including N.W.’s clothes and an opened condom wrapper in the basement. DNA testing was inconclusive. When questioned by police, Shepard denied N.W.’s allegations, stating he was upstairs when the alleged sexual abuse occurred. Shepard also alluded to an argument with N.W. concerning her cell phone. During trial, N.W.’s older brother testified Shepard was considered the disciplinarian of the family. Shepard would take away electronics to enforce household rules. Shepard, who represented himself at trial, also testified, stating he viewed himself as the disciplinarian and N.W. may have resented him for it. During N.W.’s testimony, Shepard asked her, “Did you ever get your phone taken away for inappropriate videos or conversations?” The State objected to the question, asserting it was precluded by Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.412. Shepard countered it was not precluded, as the purpose of 3 the question was not concerning the contents of N.W.’s phone, just whether she had the phone taken away before for such content. The district court agreed with the State and ruled Shepard could not ask questions about “inappropriate material.” The jury found Shepard guilty of second-degree sexual abuse. Shepard appeals, asserting the district court abused its discretion by wrongly excluding evidence and his constitutional rights were violated. II. Analysis We review challenges to the district court’s rulings on evidence for abuse of discretion. State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874, 877 (Iowa 2019). “We apply a de novo standard of review to claimed violations of the constitutional right to present a defense . . . and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.” State v. Montgomery, 966 N.W.2d 641, 649 (Iowa 2021). Shepard asserts two arguments why the excluded evidence should have been admitted. First, he claims the evidence N.W. had inappropriate material on her phone is not necessarily evidence of sexual behavior barred by rule 5.412. Alternatively, Shepard asserts if the evidence was sexual in nature, its exclusion violated his constitutional right to confrontation. The exchange between Shepard, the State, and the district court concerning the evidence is as follows: SHEPARD: Did you ever get your phone taken away for inappropriate videos or conversations? STATE: Objection, Your Honor . . . . .... Your Honor, this is rape shield. Iowa Rule . . . 5.412 protects victims from this exact type of questioning without prior notice. The 4 defendant should have, if he wanted to get into things that would have otherwise been protected by rape shield, filed a notice in advance so that we could have an in-camera hearing to question this witness. This is absolutely covered by rape shield. If the defendant wants to ask this witness about inappropriate videos on her phone, it is protected by Iowa Rule 5.412. SHEPARD: Your Honor, the question is not protected by rape shield. I was not about to ask the witness about the inappropriate videos on her phone. I was asking her if she had ever gotten it taken away for such. The question is relevant. It would show a motive. I would—you know, it would show motive. It’s— COURT: How does it show motive? SHEPARD: —highly relevant. A motive to the fabrication of the statements, the accusations, Your Honor. It would show a reason why she would—she would fear getting her phone taken away and kept away because she had priors for these types of behaviors, Your Honor. COURT: Has nothing to do with what’s on the phone. SHEPARD: Exactly. COURT: And you didn’t ask did she have her phone taken away. You were trying to volunteer that was inappropriate material, which is Rule 5.412. When I’m talking, you do not talk. I told you from the beginning that you are expected to follow the same rules every attorney has followed. You are violating [rule] 5.412. It is not admissible, and you will not be attempting to ask any questions about any other inappropriate material. Are we clear on that? .... SHEPARD: I feel like the objections are being unfairly—she’s not even letting me get the questions out before she tells you; so how would the Court know that I’m about to ask a— 5 COURT: Because the words you are saying are enough for me to know that it is inappropriate . . . . I don’t need to know that it’s a [rule 5.]412 violation when you start talking about inappropriate material. . . . .... SHEPARD: No, Your Honor. What I’m trying to say is not only is the—the question was designed to show that the witness had knowledge beyond what an 11-year-old should have and how. COURT: That’s [rule 5.]412. You didn’t file a motion. It’s not coming through. Okay? Rule 5.412(a)(1) and (2) prohibit “the use of evidence in a criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual abuse if the evidence is offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior” or “to prove a victim’s sexual disposition.” State v. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2021) (cleaned up). The rule is subject to several exceptions including evidence of prior sexual behavior offered “to show that a person other than the defendant was the perpetrator, the sexual encounter was consensual, or, if excluded, the constitutional rights of the defendant would be violated.” Id.; Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(b)(1)(A)–(C). Shepard asserts that the evidence of inappropriate content on N.W.’s phone was not sexual in nature. Under these facts and circumstances, we are not persuaded. Shepard argues the question, “Did you ever get your phone taken away for inappropriate videos or conversations?” was intended to show motive—i.e., that N.W. fabricated the abuse to get Shepard in trouble because he was the family’s disciplinarian. But this belies Shepard’s explanation to the district court that “the question was designed to show that the witness had knowledge beyond what an 11-year-old should have and how.” Further, in his briefing, Shepard explains, “[N.W.’s] prior knowledge in this regard provides additional context to explain how she was able to 6 provide specific details regarding the alleged sexual abuse.” On the surface it appears the question is the type prohibited by rule 5.412(a)(1)–(2), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding so. Donahue, 957 N.W.2d at 8–9 n.1 (explaining an absence of an offer of proof “makes it impossible for [a reviewing court] to determine if the evidence is admissible”). Because the evidence is subject to rule 5.412, Shepard was required to file a motion “that specifically describes the evidence and states the purpose for which it is to be offered . . . at least 14 days before trial.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.412(c)(1)(A)–(B). Here, the district court noted that Shepard failed to file a motion before trial, and so the evidence was inadmissible. See State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874, 878 (Iowa 2019). Shepard “does not contest the finding. Nor does [Shepard] seek to excuse his failure to timely file notice.” Id. We find the district court’s determination the evidence was inadmissible because of lack of a timely rule 5.412(c)(1) motion was not an abuse of discretion. See State v. Mayes, No. 19-0252, 2020 WL 2060306, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020) (finding the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining sexual behavior evidence inadmissible when defendant failed to file a rule 5.412(c)(1) motion). We affirm Shepard’s conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED. 7