Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 75 / 06-1000 Filed September 28, 2007 STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, vs. JAMES HOWARD BENTLEY, Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Benton County and Linn County, Denver D. Dillard, Judge.

State appeals from the district court's pre-trial ruling that admission of a ten-year-old child's videotaped statements at trial would violate the defendant's right to confront a witness against him under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFFIRMED.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, David C. Thompson, Benton County Attorney, Harold Denton, Linn County Attorney, and Nicholas Maybanks, Assistant Linn County Attorney, for appellant.

Thomas J. O'Flaherty of O'Flaherty Law Firm, North Liberty, for appellee.

Alice A. Phillips of American Prosecutors Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, for amicus curiae.

2 HECHT, Justice. The issue presented in this interlocutory appeal is whether the videotaped statements of J.G., a ten-year-old child, are admissible under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution at James Bentley's trial on sexual abuse charges. Because we conclude J.G.'s

statements are testimonial, J.G. is unavailable to testify at trial, and Bentley had no opportunity for cross-examination, we affirm the district court's ruling that the videotaped statements are inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause. I. Factual Background.

On November 16, 2004, J.G. was interviewed by Roseanne Matuszek, a counselor at St. Luke's Child Protection Center (CPC). 1 The interview was arranged by Officer Ann Deutmeyer, an investigator employed by the Cedar Rapids Police Department, and Pam Holtz, a representative of the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). Officer Deutmeyer and Holtz

watched and listened to the interview through an "observation window." During the videotaped interview, J.G. made numerous statements alleging James Bentley sexually abused her. Bentley's brother murdered J.G. on or around March 24, 2005. Other facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal will be presented below in our analysis of the legal issue presented. II. Procedural Background.

Two days after J.G.'s interview at the CPC, the Linn County Attorney charged Bentley with the crime of sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and 709.3 (2003). Soon afterward, the Benton County Attorney filed similar charges against Bentley.

holds a Master's Degree in counseling and has interviewed nearly 3,000 children during her fourteen years of service at the CPC.

1Matuszek

3 Bentley filed in both cases a motion for a preliminary determination of the admissibility of J.G.'s videotaped interview under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court ruled

admission of the videotape would not violate the Confrontation Clause. After we denied Bentley's application for review of that ruling, he filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent the videotape's admission at trial. After a hearing on the motion in limine, the district court held admission of the videotape would violate Bentley's constitutional right to confront a witness against him. 2 The State filed an application for We stayed the district court

discretionary review, which we granted.

proceedings pending resolution of this matter. III. Standard of Review.

We review de novo claims involving the Confrontation Clause. State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000). IV. Analysis.

The Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees to Bentley the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." U.S. Const. amend. VI. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held tape-recorded statements police officers elicited during a custodial interrogation of the defendant's wife were inadmissible at the defendant's trial because they were testimonial, the declarant was unavailable at trial, and the defendant had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 541 U.S. at 38

Download STATE OF IOWA vs. JAMES HOWARD BENTLEY.pdf

Iowa Law