State v. Buelow
| Decision Date | 11 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-0733,18-0733 |
| Citation | 951 N.W.2d 879 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Fontae Cole BUELOW, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
David N. Fautsch (argued) and Elisabeth A. Archer of Weinhardt Law Firm, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Genevieve Reinkoester (argued), Assistant Attorney General, C.J. May, County Attorney, and Brigit A. Barnes, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
In this case, defendant, Fontae Buelow, is accused of murdering Samantha Link. Buelow claims Link committed suicide. A jury convicted Buelow of second-degree murder. We must decide whether Link's mental health records are admissible as evidence of Link's suicidal disposition. The mental health records contain discussion of Link's prior suicide attempts, statements of suicidal feelings, and possible mental health diagnoses that may increase the risk for suicide. On appeal, defendant argued that (1) the district court erred when it excluded Link's mental health records at trial, (2) the district court erred when it limited the defense expert's review of the medical records to only records from one year immediately preceding Link's death, and (3) the district court erred in forbidding lay testimony on Link's suicidal behavior. The court of appeals reversed on the district court's evidentiary rulings regarding Link's medical records and remanded for a new trial.
The State seeks further review of the court of appeals decision that held that evidence of Link's mental health history tending to show a suicidal disposition should not be considered character evidence. The State also seeks further review of the court of appeals determination that temporal proximity does not keep out the evidence contained within Link's medical records. Additionally, the State seeks review of the court of appeals holding that Buelow should be granted a new trial because the exclusion of Link's medical records and limitation of the expert's review of the records was not harmless error.
Upon our review, we conclude that evidence of a person's suicidal disposition is not properly analyzed as character evidence under the Iowa Rules of Evidence in cases where the defendant alleges suicide. We also determine that under the facts of this case, the temporal proximity of the medical records is not too remote to be relevant to Buelow's defense that Link committed suicide. Furthermore, we conclude that the exclusion of evidence regarding Link's mental health records and the limitation of testimony on those records was not harmless error in this case.
Samantha Link, a twenty-one year old, lived with her twenty-five-year-old significant other, Fontae Buelow, in a friend's basement. On March 30, 2017, the couple began the evening at a hotel hot tub. They later went to a bar to drink with friends. The couple argued at the bar, but they ended up leaving together to go home. They continued to argue once home. No one else was present at the residence. Buelow says that Link grabbed a knife from a butcher's block sitting on the kitchen counter and stabbed herself. Buelow called 911 and told the operator that Link had stabbed herself in the stomach. Buelow also told law enforcement that Link had stabbed herself one time in the stomach. Emergency responders pronounced Link dead at the scene. Link was determined to have three knife wounds. One of the stab wounds penetrated Link's heart and another went through her lung. Both of these wounds were independently fatal. The third stab wound was also in her chest area. The State charged Buelow with first-degree murder. Buelow's only defense is that Link committed suicide by stabbing herself.
Buelow filed a motion with the district court seeking Link's mental health, therapy, and counseling records, because he believed the records might contain exculpatory evidence that would bolster his suicide defense. The district court reviewed the medical records in camera and then gave both parties access to them. The records contained discussion of Link's prior suicide attempts, diagnoses that may increase the risk for suicide, and statements of suicidal ideations. Additionally, Link discussed her relationship with a former boyfriend in the records.
The district court allowed the defense's expert to review Link's medical records but limited the review to include only records within one year's time before the date of her death. The district court did not allow the defense's expert to comment on the manner of death or whether Link acted in conformance with her past conduct. Additionally, the court excluded all medical records from trial and did not allow lay testimony on Link's suicidal disposition.
The defense filed a motion requesting the district court to expand its prior ruling on the State's motion in limine. In part, the defense requested that the district court allow its expert to review five years of Link's medical records prior to the date of her death, rather than one year, and to admit the records at trial. The defense also sought to introduce lay testimony from Link's former boyfriend that during their relationship Link had grabbed a knife during an argument. The former boyfriend did not give a time frame for this occurrence. The district court ruled that this testimony was too remote to be relevant and that it was an attempt to present improper character evidence.
The jury found Buelow guilty of second-degree murder. The court of appeals reversed on the district court's evidentiary rulings and remanded for a new trial without addressing Buelow's remaining issues on appeal.1 The State applied for further review, and we granted its application.
"Evidentiary rulings are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Einfeldt , 914 N.W.2d 773, 778 (Iowa 2018) (quoting State v. Tipton , 897 N.W.2d 653, 690 (Iowa 2017) ). We reverse for an abuse of discretion if evidence was excluded based on an erroneous application of the law. Giza v. BNSF Ry. , 843 N.W.2d 713, 718 (Iowa 2014). The standard of review for hearsay, however, is for errors at law. State v. Paredes , 775 N.W.2d 554, 560 (Iowa 2009).
There are five evidentiary issues that were raised on appeal: (1) whether the statements in Link's medical records constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801, (2) whether Link's medical records are too remote to be relevant under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.401, (3) whether evidence of a person's suicidal disposition is character evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.404(a ), (4) whether admission of Link's medical records are unfairly prejudicial under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.403, and (5) whether it was harmless error to exclude Link's medical records and limit the defense expert's review of them.
A. Hearsay. The first issue is whether Link's medical records and the statements within them are inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is a statement that the declarant makes elsewhere than at the current trial, which is being offered "to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement." Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(c ). Hearsay is normally inadmissible. Id. r. 5.802. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow some statements to come in, despite the fact that they are being used to prove the matter stated. There are exceptions for "records of a regularly conducted activity," "statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment," and "statement[s] of the declarant's then existing state of mind ... or emotional, sensory, or physical condition." Id. r. 5.803(3), (4), (6).
Under Iowa Code section 622.10 (2017), mental health records are privileged confidential information that may be accessed by a criminal defendant only pursuant to a proper showing. Early on in the litigation, Buelow met the initial threshold burden laid out in section 622.10 for in camera review of Link's medical records by establishing that the records possibly contain exculpatory information, that the information is not available from another source, and that there is a compelling need for the information so that he may present a defense in the case. A district court judge's ruling that medical records may be disseminated to parties under section 622.10 does not guarantee their admissibility, however.
Link's medical records are admissible hearsay under the exception for records of a regularly conducted activity. Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(6). This exception admits "a record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis" if made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, if the record was kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity of the organization, and making the record was the regular practice of that organization or business. Id. ; see also In re Est. of Poulos , 229 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Iowa 1975) ().
Link's statements within the medical records regarding her current health, feelings, and plans are admissible under the exception allowing for "[a] statement of the declarant's then existing state of mind ... or emotional, sensory, or physical condition." Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(3). Link's statements within her medical records regarding her history of suicidal thoughts are admissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(4), which allows for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. However, not all statements made to a health care provider necessarily fit under the exception within rule 5.803(4). For example, we have said that there may be circumstances in which a patient makes a statement to a physician that identifies the patient's domestic abuser, and that statement will not necessarily meet the exception in rule 5.803(4). See State v. Smith , 876 N.W.2d 180, 188 (Iowa 2016).
Regarding Link's medical records, the State concedes that any statements made by Link...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fontenot
...a substantial right of the defendant is affected—and reverse unless the record affirmatively establishes otherwise.’ " State v. Buelow , 951 N.W.2d 879, 890 (Iowa 2020) (quoting Sullivan , 679 N.W.2d at 30 ). I conclude there was evidentiary error here, and the record does not affirmatively......
-
State v. Zacarias
...v. Benson , 919 N.W.2d 237, 241–42 (Iowa 2018) ). We generally review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Buelow , 951 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 2020). We may consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal if "the appeal was already pending on July 1, 2019, when Se......
-
State v. Thoren
...the challenged evidence is relevant, we use a two-part test to determine whether it should nonetheless be excluded. State v. Buelow , 951 N.W.2d 879, 889 (Iowa 2020). "First, we ‘consider the probative value of the evidence.’ Second, we balance the probative value ‘against the danger of its......
- State v. Boothby