## Facts

- Bernard Richard Hickman and Louise Sheerin worked at a restaurant in Bettendorf, Iowa.
- Sheerin was found dead in a restroom with at least 39 stab wounds.
- The prosecution’s theory was that Hickman forced Sheerin into the restroom, raped her, and murdered her during the sexual assault.
- The State introduced extensive physical and medical evidence, including crime-scene and autopsy photographs and detailed medical testimony about the wounds and autopsy findings.
- Hickman admitted killing Sheerin but testified that intercourse was consensual and that he killed her in a sudden rage after she insulted him.
- Hickman had a prior conviction for assault with intent to rape in which he slashed another woman’s throat; he was paroled before the present offense.
- To rebut Hickman’s claim of consensual intercourse, the State called a psychiatrist who evaluated Hickman and his records and testified that Hickman fit a class of “aggressive, hatred rapists.”

## Issues

1. Whether pretrial publicity required a change of venue because of a substantial likelihood that a fair and impartial trial could not be held in the county.
2. Whether admission of numerous crime-scene and autopsy photographs was error because they were gruesome and unfairly prejudicial.
3. Whether the psychiatrist’s testimony was improperly admitted as rebuttal rather than being presented in the State’s case-in-chief.
4. Whether the evidence required submitting insanity and diminished responsibility defenses to the jury.

## Decision

- The conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence were affirmed.
- Denial of a change of venue was upheld; the record, including voir dire, did not show a substantial likelihood of an unfair trial.
- The photographs were admissible; the trial court reviewed them individually, excluded some, and did not abuse its discretion in admitting the rest because their evidentiary value outweighed prejudice.
- The psychiatrist’s testimony was proper rebuttal because it directly responded to Hickman’s claim that the intercourse was consensual.
- The trial court correctly refused to instruct on insanity and diminished responsibility because the record contained no substantial evidence to generate those defenses for the jury.

## Legal Principles

- A change of venue is required when prejudice in the county creates a substantial likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had; appellate review examines the record while assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion.
- Graphic homicide photographs are not excluded solely for gruesomeness; the core inquiry is relevance and whether probative value outweighs unfair prejudice, a determination committed to trial-court discretion.
- Rebuttal evidence may be admitted when it responds to a defendant’s trial narrative; trial courts have discretion to permit expert psychological testimony that counters a claim such as consensual sexual conduct.
- Insanity and diminished responsibility instructions are warranted only when supported by substantial evidence; absent that evidentiary threshold, the defenses are not submitted to the jury.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Hickman’s first-degree murder conviction, holding that pretrial publicity did not require a venue change, the challenged photographs and psychiatric rebuttal testimony were properly admitted, and the evidence was insufficient to submit insanity or diminished responsibility to the jury.


State v. Hickman, 337 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 1983)