D.S. v. State
Decision Date | 21 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13–0888.,13–0888. |
Citation | 856 N.W.2d 348 |
Parties | In the Interest of D.S., Minor Child. D.S., Minor Child, Appellant, State of Iowa, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thais A. Folta, Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun & White, L.L.P., Cresco and John Slavik, Elwood, O'Donohoe, Braun & White, L.L.P., Charles City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bruce L. Kempkes, Assistant Attorney General, and Jill M. Kistler, County Attorney, for appellee.
A juvenile accused of harassing a peer during an after-school confrontation appeals from her delinquency adjudication. She contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that she committed harassment under Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(b ). She also contends that her delinquency adjudication violated her First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. Upon our de novo review, we conclude there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the juvenile committed harassment. Because we reach this conclusion on different grounds than did the court of appeals, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and reverse the judgment of the juvenile court.
On February 20, 2013, K.B. approached New Albin Police Chief, Kent Orr, and told him that her fifteen-year-old daughter, T.B., had been harassed at school by a fellow classmate, fifteen-year-old D.S.
Based on this report, Chief Orr went to the home of D.S., who lived with her mother in New Albin. According to Chief Orr, D.S. answered the door and immediately said, Chief Orr told D.S. he had received a complaint that she had been harassing T.B. D.S. replied, “I hate that f*cking b*tch.” Orr then asked D.S. if she talked to T.B. at school. D.S. answered, Before leaving the house, Chief Orr instructed D.S. not to have any contact with T.B.
Chief Orr then met with T.B. and her mother at the police station. At Chief Orr's request, T.B. wrote a statement of the incident in question. T.B. wrote:
T.B. further testified that she went home and cried after the incident.
According to T.B., D.S. has bullied her in the past. T.B. testified that the two “used to get kind of along when [T.B.'s] mom was a Girl Scout leader, but after that [D.S.] bullied [her] ... nonstop....” T.B. further testified that she “couldn't even walk home at night without being scared,” and that she is intimidated by D.S.
On cross-examination, T.B. conceded “[D.S.] threatened [her] in the past, not at this event, but ... before,” and that D.S. made her feel intimidated by “in the past ... picking fights with [her].” She further testified that D.S. made her “feel insecure,” as though “[she] ... almost want[ed] to commit suicide.” T.B. testified that she and D.S. were about ten feet apart during the incident. T.B. acknowledged she did not mention in her written statement to Chief Orr that D.S. yelled “you can go die in a hole,” but that “it did occur.”
On redirect, T.B. testified that during the encounter with D.S. she felt intimidated and thought D.S. was threatening to harm her. T.B. testified that her feelings were based on D.S. “saying mean things to [her], and with all the things she said in the past, just reoccurring.”
D.S.'s counsel then cross-examined T.B. again. T.B. was asked what D.S. threatened to do to her. T.B. testified, “She says the exact same things over and over again, and just—I don't know.” T.B. then testified that D.S. had “threatened to kill [her] family before.” Counsel asked, “Did that happen on February 20?” T.B. answered, “No.”
T.B.'s neighbor testified that she heard D.S. yell at T.B. on February 20. She stated that she was unsure whether D.S. “said the C word, c*nt, or s*ut” because she “was shocked.” The neighbor testified that she asked T.B., “[D]id she just say what I thought she said?” T.B. responded, “Yes, she did ... but I'm getting used to it.”
D.S. testified that before the incident on February 20, she had gotten off the bus, as she does every day, and lost track of her friend, T.F. In an effort to reunite with T.F., D.S. yelled “T bitch” because “that's what [she] always called her.” D.S. testified, T.B. “looked at me and said, ‘Thank you,’ all snotty.” D.S. responded to T.B., According to D.S., T.B. “just started yelling a bunch more stuff at [her], and [they] just kept yelling stuff at each other.” The incident lasted about five minutes. D.S. testified she was not trying to intimidate or alarm T.B., and that she did not make any threats to T.B.
The juvenile court issued its “Findings, Conclusions, and Order” on May 10. In its order, the court highlighted inconsistencies between T.B.'s testimony and her statement to police. Specifically, it noted that T.B. did not mention in her statement to Chief Orr that D.S. told her “she could die in a hole,” which T.B. testified to at the hearing. It further noted that T.B.'s statement to Chief Orr alleged D.S. made comments concerning T.B. “having sexual relations with the bus driver.” However, T.B. had failed to mention that in her testimony. Based on these inconsistencies, the juvenile court concluded that T.B.'s testimony with respect to these statements was not credible.
The juvenile court also found it was not reasonable to believe T.B. anticipated any physical harm or threat of physical harm from D.S. because D.S. is substantially shorter and weighs less than T.B. In addition, the court noted T.B. testified she was not threatened during the incident and that T.B. was not in apprehension of imminent physical harm during this encounter. Nevertheless, the court found D.S.'s statements were meant as a put down, had no legitimate purpose, and that D.S. intended her statements to make T.B. lack self-confidence in her relations with the opposite sex and about her body-build.
The juvenile court then consulted dictionary definitions of the statutory terms “threaten,” “intimidate,” and “alarm.” Specifically, it interpreted the term “intimidate” to mean “to make timid or fearful,” and in turn defined “timid” as “lacking in courage or self-confidence.” Thus, the juvenile court ultimately concluded the term “intimidate” means to “make one lack courage or self-confidence.” The court then concluded the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that D.S. committed harassment in the third degree by means of intimidation. The juvenile court rejected the First Amendment defense raised by D.S. in a prior motion. Accordingly, the court adjudicated D.S. to have committed a delinquent act.
D.S. appealed, and the case was transferred to the court of appeals. The court of appeals determined the district court erred in defining “intimidate” as “lacking in courage or self-confidence.” Instead, based on dictionary definitions, and applying our rules of statutory construction, the court of appeals held “intimidate” means to “inspire or affect with fear” or to “frighten.” Applying this narrower definition, the court of appeals concluded the State had failed to prove D.S. harassed T.B. under section 708.7(1)(b ) and reversed the delinquency adjudication.
The State applied for further review, which we granted.
Delinquency proceedings are “special proceedings that serve as an alternative” to criminal prosecution of a child. In re J.A.L., 694 N.W.2d 748, 751 (Iowa 2005). The objective of the proceedings is the best interests of the child.Id. We review the sufficiency of the evidence for juvenile adjudications de novo. See In re A.K., 825 N.W.2d 46, 49 (Iowa 2013). While in reviewing such proceedings we give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court—especially regarding witness credibility—we are not bound by them. Id. “We presume the child is innocent of the charges,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Interest of T.H.
...456, 460 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). We consider the sufficiency of the evidence in juvenile delinquency adjudications de novo. In re D.S. , 856 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Iowa 2014). We review constitutional challenges de novo. State v. Roby , 897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017).III. Analysis.A. Sufficiency o......
-
In re Interest of J.K., 14–0852.
...interests. Id. We review delinquency proceedings de novo, but give weight to the factual findings of the juvenile court. In re D.S., 856 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Iowa 2014). We also review de novo decisions implicating a juvenile's constitutional rights. Cf. State v. Lyman, 776 N.W.2d 865, 873 (Iow......
-
State v. King
...bedroom. Specific intent refers to the aim of the accused to "do some further act or achieve some additional consequence." In re D.S. , 856 N.W.2d 348, 352 (Iowa 2014). Specific-intent crimes designate "a special mental element which is required above and beyond any mental state required wi......
-
In re Interest of I.M.
...examine the evidence to determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the child violated a statute. See In re D.S. , 856 N.W.2d 348, 352 (Iowa 2014).A. I.M. claims the State did not present sufficient evidence to show he committed the delinquent act of attempted murder. S......