State v. Olutunde

• Decision Date: 22 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–1799.,14–1799.
• Citation: 878 N.W.2d 264
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Soji Itunu OLUTUNDE, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

878 N.W.2d 264

STATE of Iowa, Appellee,

v.Soji Itunu OLUTUNDE, Appellant.

No. 14–1799.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 22, 2016.

Davis L. Foster, Iowa City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, and Rachel Zimmermann, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

WATERMAN

, Justice.

This appeal presents questions of first impression concerning access to records of dependent adult abuse sealed under Iowa Code section 235B.9 (2013)

and the use of such information in a criminal prosecution. The defendant, while employed at a home caring for dependent adults, allegedly punched a disabled client and was charged with dependent adult abuse in violation of section 235B.20(7). The State and the defendant filed motions in limine as to the admissibility of evidence of his prior violent acts or findings of dependent adult abuse. The State also filed a motion to unseal founded dependent adult abuse reports more than ten years old. The district court granted the State's motions to unseal the records and ruled the information potentially could be used at trial to impeach the defendant or his character witnesses. We granted the defendant's application for discretionary review.

For the reasons explained below, we hold the district court erred by unsealing the record of a founded report of dependent adult abuse by this defendant more than ten years earlier. We decline to issue an advisory opinion on the scope of permissible impeachment at trial. We reverse the ruling of the district court that unsealed the records under section 235B.9

and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On January 21, 2014, Soji Olutunde, age fifty-one, was working as a caretaker for Systems Unlimited, a company that provides long-term care for dependent adults at a group home in Iowa City. Olutunde walked into the kitchen and saw a disabled adult resident, who requires twenty-four-hour supervision, washing a water pitcher in the sink. What happened next is disputed. Two other employees told police they saw Olutunde approach the victim, yell at him, and strike him in the groin with a closed fist. The victim hunched over and asked Olutunde "why he did that." Olutunde denied those allegations in his police interview. According to Olutunde, the disabled client was about to drink soapy water from the pitcher. Olutunde clapped his hands and shouted to stop him but did not strike him. The alleged victim had no bruising or sign of injury.

On March 21, the State charged Olutunde with dependent adult abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 235B.20(7)

. During pretrial discovery, Olutunde listed nine character witnesses. On September 19, the State filed a motion in limine to "inform the Defendant and the Court of its intention to introduce certain evidence for rebuttal or cross examination purposes." The State had learned through its investigation that Olutunde had a previous founded report for dependent adult abuse. The report was over ten years old and had been sealed pursuant to Iowa Code section 235B.9.¹ The State alleged that the defendant had denied being the subject of a prior investigation for dependent adult abuse on his job application. Defense counsel argued Olutunde was unaware that he had previously been under investigation.

The State filed a motion to unseal records on October 24. The State argued the records could be opened to authorized access upon a showing of good cause. The State argued that "[g]ood cause is shown here in that the State would be prejudiced if access to such records is not granted for a determination of their admissibility at trial." Olutunde resisted, claiming that chapter 235B does not provide for opening sealed dependent adult abuse records.

The district court granted the State's motion to unseal records on October 27. The district court emphasized that the State was seeking the reports to use on cross-examination of the defendant and his character witnesses. The district court explained,

It would not be fair to the State to allow a defendant to claim, either directly or through witnesses, that he had never been involved in a [dependent] adult abuse investigation when, in fact, a founded report had been filed, simply because the report is now under seal. In that case, the existence of the report and its findings would be fair game for cross-examination.

The court ordered the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals to unseal any founded dependent adult abuse reports regarding Olutunde within seventy-two hours. The court "specifically [found] that the information contained in this report [was] necessary for the resolution of an issue arising in a criminal case involving dependent adult abuse."

On October 30, the district court ruled on motions in limine. The court conditionally granted the State's motion in limine to allow the State to use the existence of the report during cross-examination of Olutunde or his character witnesses if relevant for impeachment. The court held that if Olutunde or his witnesses opened the door, the contents of the founded report could be admissible as an exhibit.

Olutunde applied for discretionary review and requested a stay in proceedings pursuant to Iowa Code section 814.6

. We granted Olutunde's application on October 31.

II. Standard of Review.

"We review rulings on questions of statutory interpretation for correction of errors at law." In re R.D., 876 N.W.2d 786, 791 (Iowa 2016)

. "We review the district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion." State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180, 190 (Iowa 2013).

III. Analysis.

We must decide whether the district court had the authority to unseal dependent adult abuse registry records to allow the State to use the information for cross-examining Olutunde or his character witnesses. Olutunde argues the legislature has mandated that sealed dependent adult abuse records must remain sealed:

Dependent adult abuse information which is determined by a preponderance of the evidence to be founded, shall be sealed ten years after the receipt of the initial report of such abuse by the registry unless good cause is shown why the information should remain open to authorized access.

Iowa Code § 235B.9(1)

. The State argues this provision "does not prohibit the district court from ordering a founded dependent adult abuse report unsealed." It is undisputed that the prior founded abuse report involving Olutunde was sealed and involved conduct reported ten or more years prior. We conclude that Olutunde's prior founded report must remain sealed.

A. Whether the District Court Could Unseal Olutunde's Dependent Adult Abuse Record. We begin with an overview of chapter 235B, which is entitled "Dependent Adult Abuse Services—Information Registry." Section 235B.5 creates a central registry for dependent adult abuse information. Id. § 235B.5. The purposes of this central registry

are to facilitate the identification of victims or potential victims of dependent adult abuse by making available a single, statewide source of dependent adult abuse data; to facilitate research on dependent adult abuse by making available a single, statewide source of dependent adult abuse data; and to provide maximum safeguards against the unwarranted invasions of privacy which such a registry might otherwise entail.

Id. § 235B.4. The legislature emphasized the importance of protecting privacy, stating, "The general assembly ... finds that vigorous protection of rights of individual privacy is an indispensable element of a fair and effective system of collecting, maintaining, and disseminating dependent adult abuse information." Id. § 235B.4.

The legislature strictly circumscribes who may access the central registry. Dependent adult abuse information is confidential and is only open to authorized users. Id. § 235B.6. Iowa Code section 235B.6(2)

lists who has authorized access to founded dependent adult abuse information. That list includes persons named in the report as victims or alleged abusers and their representatives, persons who investigate dependent adult abuse, licensed caregivers and administrators, registry or department personnel, the department of inspections and appeals, and the court. See id. § 235B.6(2).

The statute also strictly limits the use of registry information. See id. § 235B.8(1). Any dissemination must be memorialized in writing. Id. § 235B.8(1)(c ). An authorized user is subject to civil and criminal penalties for wrongfully disseminating the registry information. Id. § 235B.11 (providing a civil remedy and mandating a minimum award of $500); id. § 235B.12 (providing criminal penalties).

Founded dependent adult abuse information in the registry generally must be sealed ten years after receipt of the initial report. Id. § 235B.9(1)

. Two circumstances extend the period that the information may remain unsealed. First, a founded report will not be sealed after ten years if "good cause is shown why the information should remain open to authorized access." Id. Second, subsequent reports within the ten-year period may delay sealing the first report:

If a subsequent report of founded dependent adult abuse involving the adult named in the initial report as the victim of abuse or a person named in such report as having abused an adult is received by the registry within the ten-year period, the information shall be sealed ten years after the receipt of the subsequent report unless good cause is shown why the information should remain open to authorized access.

Id. Neither circumstance is presented in this case. The State concedes Olutunde's prior founded report was made over ten years ago and was already sealed before he was charged in this pending case.

Section 235B.9

does not provide for "expungement" of founded reports of dependent adult abuse. Other types of reports under this Code section, however, are expunged after three or five years:

2. a. Dependent adult

...