State v. Skahill
| Decision Date | 22 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1067,19-1067 |
| Citation | 966 N.W.2d 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jake SKAHILL, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley C. Stewart (argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary C. Miller (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
This case presents the recurring issue of when forensic interviews of child complaining witnesses should be admitted into evidence. The defendant was convicted of sexually abusing his seven-year-old daughter. At trial, the daughter testified and described the abuse. In addition, a nurse, a physician, and the girl's mother all testified concerning the girl's reports of the abuse. The defendant's appeal centers on the trial court's decision also to admit videos of two forensic interviews in which the daughter described the abuse.
We conclude on appeal that the forensic interviews were not admissible. They were not statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment, see Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(4), nor did they fall under the residual hearsay exception because they were not "more probative on the point for which [they were] offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts," id. r. 5.807(a )(3). We also conclude their admission was not harmless error based on our review of the record, particularly the manner in which the case was tried.
The defendant has raised an ineffective assistance claim relating to his trial counsel's failure to object to the role played by the child's guardian ad litem (GAL) in the prosecution of the case. Although we need not resolve the ineffective assistance claim in full, we address these issues to some extent to provide guidance for retrial.
In sum, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals, we reverse the defendant's convictions because of the erroneous admission of the forensic interviews, and we remand this case for a new trial.
The appellant, Jake Skahill, was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3(1)(b ) (2018), a class "B" felony; enticing a minor, in violation of section 710.10(1), a class "C" felony; and indecent exposure, in violation of section 709.9(1), a serious misdemeanor. Each of these charges stemmed from events that occurred in mid-February 2018, when Skahill was home with his seven-year-old daughter, K.W. At that time, custody of K.W. alternated between Skahill and K.W.’s mother. While this was hard on K.W., the coparenting arrangement was not mired in conflict, and K.W. generally enjoyed her time at her dad's house. Skahill was then twenty-four years old. In addition to K.W., Skahill lived with his wife and four other children—three half-siblings to K.W. and one stepsibling.
Wednesday, February 14, was the beginning of a several-day period when K.W. would be out of school because of parent–teacher conferences. She stayed with Skahill from Wednesday evening to Sunday afternoon. Skahill regularly worked a late shift as an assistant manager of a convenience store. He remained home on both Thursday and Friday morning while his spouse was working. Skahill testified at trial that he spent both mornings watching TV, picking up around the house, and keeping an eye on the kids. K.W. told a different story. K.W. testified that on one of those mornings, she sat on her dad's lap in a living room chair while they watched TV and fell asleep on his chest. When asked what happened when she woke up, she replied, "We were under the blanket, and he showed me his private." She went on to testify that Skahill asked her to "wiggle it." K.W. also described being touched by Skahill: "He touched me ... [o]n my privates ... [i]n between my legs."
K.W. said the touching occurred under her clothes. She agreed that the touching could be described as a "brush up against" her privates but also answered that it was painful. K.W. testified that after these things occurred, "[Skahill] told me ... that this was our secret." K.W. testified that she was afraid of Skahill and avoided him the rest of the long weekend, although witnesses who were around them both testified that they noticed nothing out of the ordinary.
Shortly after K.W. returned to her mother on the afternoon of Sunday, February 18, she explained to her mother that there was a secret she thought she should tell. According to K.W.’s mother, K.W. told her that Skahill had "touch[ed] her insides" and asked her to touch his penis with her hand and mouth. K.W.’s mother was "shocked" and took her to the emergency room to be examined that evening. There, K.W. told the nurse that she fell asleep on the chair and that her dad touched her when she woke up. She again stated that her dad had tried making her "touch his privates" and had told her to keep it a secret. An examination report from this visit noted K.W. had a "[s]hort linear mucosal wound inferior and to the left of the urethral opening" in the genital area. K.W. also stated that her "bottom" sometimes hurt when she sat down after her dad touched her.
On Monday, February 19, K.W. was taken to St. Luke's Child Protection Center (CPC) for a physical exam and forensic interview. Dr. Regina Butteris performed the physical exam. At the beginning of the exam, she inquired into K.W.’s history and what brought her there. K.W. told her that her dad had touched her "private area" with his hands. Dr. Butteris did not observe a wound at that time, but she testified that it was not uncommon for mucosal wounds to heal quickly. She also explained that such a wound could be caused by "falling on something that would injure a vaginal area, wiping, scratching, that sort of thing could cause an injury to the vaginal area as well." Dr. Butteris found no physical evidence to corroborate K.W.’s account of what happened, but she clarified that "[m]ost of the time, there is no physical evidence."
After Dr. Butteris performed the physical exam, Roseanne Van Cura conducted a recorded forensic interview. Van Cura began by building a rapport with K.W. and gathered some background information on her families. Early in the interview, K.W. confirmed an understanding that she had come to the CPC for a "checkup." However, later on, Van Cura asked K.W., "Tell me why you came to talk with me today." K.W. responded, "I don't know."
Van Cura asked K.W. what kind of punishment Skahill used on her, to which K.W. responded, "You get spanked or you get popped in your hand or the mouth." To explain what getting "popped" means, K.W. demonstrated by slapping her own mouth and hand. When asked if it hurt, she replied, K.W. went on to say that a pop on the hand made her bleed when she was three years old. Shortly after inquiring into punishment, Van Cura told K.W. that she had two rules: (1) K.W. could say anything without getting into trouble, and (2) it was important to tell the truth.
At this point, the interview turned to the sexual abuse. K.W. reported that Skahill had told her to wiggle his privates and made her touch his privates while she was on his lap in the living room chair. Substantively, K.W.’s account of the abuse was consistent with her later trial testimony. The interview questions, however, were more open-ended and slower paced, and as a whole, the interview provided more context than the later, shorter trial testimony.
On March 23, Skahill was charged in the Dubuque County District Court with four offenses: second-degree sexual abuse, lascivious acts with a child, enticing a minor, and indecent exposure. See Iowa Code §§ 709.3(1)(b ), 709.8(1)(a ), 710.10(1), 709.9(1). Skahill pled not guilty. The court appointed a GAL on behalf of K.W. pursuant to Iowa Code section 915.37.
On May 24, Van Cura of the CPC interviewed K.W. again at the request of the prosecutor. A police officer observed this interview, and K.W. was informed the officer was listening in another room. During this interview, K.W. initially referred vaguely to one or more additional times when her dad had touched her, but she faltered when asked for details. K.W. also expressed concern that her dad would go to jail. K.W.’s account of the mid-February abuse remained essentially the same.
On February 17, 2019, prior to Skahill's trial, the district court ruled that both of K.W.’s CPC interview videos would be admitted into evidence under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. See Iowa R. Evid. 5.807. It reasoned that the videos would be probative evidence regarding whether the alleged acts had occurred and that justice would be served by allowing "the jury to analyze ... K.W.’s statements, demeanor and evaluate her credibility."
Skahill's first trial, which began on February 19, resulted in a mistrial. The district court carried over its evidentiary rulings to the second trial.
Skahill's second trial began on March 12. K.W. testified by videoconference from a separate room in the courthouse. See Iowa Code § 915.38(1)(a ) (). Additional prosecution witnesses included K.W.’s mother, Dr. Butteris, the emergency room nurse, and Van Cura. In addition, over Skahill's objection, videos of both CPC interviews were played for the jury.
Skahill took the stand in his own defense and denied that any touching had occurred, but he was impeached by certain prior inconsistent statements he had given the police. For example, at trial, Skahill claimed K.W. had never seen his penis. Previously, though, he told the police that K.W. had walked in when he was in the shower and also may have seen him engage in sexual activities with his wife. To explain this inconsistency, Skahill asserted at trial that his memory had improved because he "actually can think back and clarify."...
To continue reading
Request your trial