State v. White

• Docket Number: 22-0522
• Decision Date: 28 June 2024
• Citation: State v. White, 22-0522 (Iowa Jun 28, 2024)
• Parties: State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Derek Michael White, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Derek Michael White, Appellant.

No. 22-0522

Supreme Court of Iowa

June 28, 2024

Submitted February 21, 2024

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Shayne L Mayer, Judge.

Derek White contends that his right of confrontation under the Iowa Constitution was violated.Decision of Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part; District Court Judgment Reversed and Remanded.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Rachel C. Regenold(argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester(argued) and Susan Krisko, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

OPINION

MAY JUSTICE

Under the Iowa Constitution, Iowans who are accused of crimes are guaranteed the right to confront witnesses who testify against them at trial.At the time when the Iowa Constitution was adopted, this confrontation right was understood to mean that the accused must be able to confront trial witnesses face-to-face.The Iowa Constitution guarantees that same protection today.

Here we consider whether the Iowa Constitution was violated during the trial of Derek White.Two child witnesses testified against White.These two witnesses were allowed to testify from outside of the courtroom.Meanwhile, White had to stay in the courtroom.A closed-circuit television system allowed White to see the witnesses.But the television system was a "one-way" system rather than a "two-way" system.This meant that the witnesses could not see White while they testified against him.

We conclude that this procedure violated White's confrontation right under the Iowa Constitution.When the accused and the witness are prevented from seeing each other there is no face-to-face confrontation, and the Iowa Constitution is not satisfied.We reverse White's convictions and remand for a new trial.

I.Background.

White lived with Donna Reisdorfer and several children.We discuss only those children who are relevant to this case.Two of the children were White's sons, M.W. and J.W.Another was Reisdorfer's son, D.C.

In May 2020, a social worker visited White and Reisdorfer's home.This led to the discovery that Reisdorfer's two-year-old son, D.C., had suffered extensive bruising.D.C. had bruises of various colors on his face, ear, neck, shoulders, back, thighs, and ankles.Linear marks on D.C.'s face were consistent with being hit with a belt.

White and Reisdorfer were jointly charged with neglect or abuse of a child as well as child endangerment causing bodily injury.The trial information identified D.C. as the child victim.

As trial approached, the State filed a notice of additional witnesses.The new witnesses were two of White's sons, J.W. and M.W.The State also filed a motion requesting that "the trial testimony of J.W. and M.W. be done by closed-circuit equipment as set out in Iowa Code[section] 915.38 [(2020)]."That provision states, in relevant part:

1. a. Upon its own motion or upon motion of any party, a court may protect a minor, as defined in section 599.1, from trauma caused by testifying in the physical presence of the defendant where it would impair the minor's ability to communicate, by ordering that the testimony of the minor be taken in a room other than the courtroom and be televised by closed-circuit equipment for viewing in the courtroom.However, such an order shall be entered only upon a specific finding by the court that such measures are necessary to protect the minor from trauma.Only the judge, prosecuting attorney, defendant's attorney, persons necessary to operate the equipment, and any person whose presence, in the opinion of the court, would contribute to the welfare and well-being of the minor may be present in the room with the minor during the minor's testimony.The judge shall inform the minor that the defendant will not be present in the room in which the minor will be testifying but that the defendant will be viewing the minor's testimony through closed-circuit television.

Id.§ 915.38(1)(a).

White resisted the motion.White argued that permitting "testimony of two nonvictim children" via closed-circuit television would violate White's constitutional rights.White relied on the confrontation rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as those guaranteed by article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution.White argued that Iowa's constitution requires "an even stricter approach" than federal courts' interpretations of the Sixth Amendment."At the very least," White argued, "Article I Section 10 requires in person, face-to-face testimony of nonvictim witnesses."In the alternative, White argued, "if the court is inclined to allow such procedure to go forward, the testimony should be a two-way system so that the witness can see the defendant."

The court held a hearing on the motion.An expert explained that testifying in front of White would be traumatic for M.W. and J.W. and could prevent them from reasonably communicating.The court found that the expert's testimony was credible and that the requirements of section 915.38(1)(a) were satisfied.The court also rejected White's constitutional arguments.Accordingly, the court granted the State's motion.

The case proceeded to trial against White alone.Reisdorfer was no longer a codefendant.

Consistent with its order granting the State's motion, the court permitted M.W. and J.W. to testify outside of the courtroom.Specifically, M.W. and J.W. testified in the judge's chambers, which is to say, the judge's office.The judge, the lawyers, and the court reporter were all in the chambers when M.W. and J.W. testified.White was not allowed to be in the chambers.White and the jurors had to remain in the courtroom where they viewed the testimony through a "oneway" closed-circuit television system.A "two-way" television system was not used.This meant that M.W. and J.W. could not see White when they testified against him.

J.W. testified that he was eight years old and in second grade.He identified White as his "dad."J.W. recalled the period when he lived with White, Reisdorfer, and the other children.J.W. testified that he shared a room with D.C. and M.W.When J.W. was asked "who did the spankings" when D.C. "got in trouble," J.W. said it was White.And J.W. volunteered that "[h]e spanked with his belt."J.W. testified that sometimes these spankings would occur upstairs when J.W. was downstairs.When J.W. was asked, "So how did you know it was happening upstairs[?]"he responded, "I heard it.""So did you hear [D.C.] crying and screaming?"J.W. was asked.He responded: "Oh, yeah.He screamed pretty loud."

J.W. was also asked about Reisdorfer.J.W. was asked if he"ever [saw][Reisdorfer] doing any spankings?"J.W. responded, "No."He added, "She never spanks."

M.W. testified next.M.W. testified that he was eleven years old.When asked about "who Derek White is," M.W. said, "He was my bio dad and he was not safe."M.W. recalled the time when he lived with White and Reisdorfer.M.W. confirmed that D.C. lived with them.M.W. recalled that when D.C. got in trouble, D.C. would sometimes receive spankings.M.W. confirmed that White "would be doing the spankings."M.W. also confirmed that, even when he couldn't see, he would know a spanking was occurring because he"could hear [D.C.] crying outloud."During these spankings, M.W. could sometimes hear White speak- and White would sound "[m]ad."M.W. didn't think he had ever seen Reisdorfer "do any spankings."

Several other witnesses also testified.They included a child abuse expert, an investigating officer, a child protection worker, and a treating provider.The officer and child protection worker testified about how they found D.C. bruised when they removed him from the home.Many witnesses spoke about D.C.'s bruises-that they were "extensive" and unlikely to be accidental.

Some witnesses testified about discussions they had had with Reisdorfer and White about D.C.'s bruises.Reisdorfer and White had offered innocent explanations for the bruising, like Reisdorfer's statement that D.C. "was a clumsy kid."Neither Reisdorfer nor White had said that D.C.'s injuries came from abuse.And neither of them had implicated the other as an abuser.

J.W. and M.W. were the only trial witnesses who had lived with White, Reisdorfer, and D.C. during the period of White's alleged crimes.They were also the only witnesses to testify that it was White-not Reisdorfer-who spanked the children.No other witness testified to hearing or seeing any spankings or other discipline in the house where White, Reisdorfer, and D.C. lived.

J.W. and M.W. were also the only witnesses to testify from outside the courtroom.All other witnesses testified in the courtroom despite some remaining COVID-19 concerns.The child abuse expert-who worked in Omaha, Nebraska-traveled to Sibley, Iowa to testify in person.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor relied heavily on the testimony of M.W. and J.W.The prosecutor recalled their testimony that White was the person who was "doing the discipline" to D.C.The prosecutor noted that "[w]e have [White] was the one that did the spankings.You heard from his two children."The prosecutor pointed out to the jury that "you have the evidence from the kids who . . . could hear [D.C.] screaming as he got his spankings."And the prosecutor noted that "we have one of [White's] children saying" that White uses a belt "when he doesn't use his hand."

The prosecutor emphasized M.W. and J.W.'s testimony that White would take D.C. "to a different room" for spankings.In responding to defense counsel's suggestion that...