EvidenceUpdateISBACriminalLawSeminar

April17,2015

LaurieKratky DoréEllis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of LawDrakeUniversityLawSchool

Overview•FocusuponIowaSupremeCourt’sevidentiarydecisionswithinthepastfiveyears

•ConfrontationClause restrictionsonadmissionofhearsayandpendingU.S.SupremeCourtcaseregardingchildhearsay

•U.S.SupremeCourt/EighthCircuitdecisionregardingimpeachmentofjuryverdict becauseofjurydishonestyduringvoir dire

•Amendments toFederalandIowaRulesofEvidence

Rule5.401: Definitionof“relevantevidence.”“Relevantevidence”meansevidencehavinganytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorlessprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.Rule5.403: Exclusionofrelevantevidenceongroundsofprejudice,confusion,orwasteoftime.Althoughrelevant,evidencemaybeexcludedifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice,confusionoftheissues,ormisleadingthejury,orbyconsiderationsofunduedelay,wasteoftime,orneedlesspresentationofcumulativeevidence.

RelevanceandUnduePrejudice

•Statev.Huston,825N.W.2d531(Iowa2013)DHS“founded”childabusereport

•InreDetentionofStenzel,827N.W.2d690(Iowa2013)SVP determination

UnduePrejudice:AdministrativeFindings

•Statev.Neiderbach,837N.W.2d180(Iowa2013)

UnduePrejudice:Day‐In‐the‐LifeVideos

Rule5.404(b). “Othercrimes,wrongs,oracts. Evidenceofothercrimes,wrongs,oractsisnotadmissibletoprovethecharacter ofapersoninordertoshowthatthepersonactedinconformitytherewith.Itmay,however,beadmissibleforotherpurposes,suchasproofofmotive,opportunity,intent,preparation,plan,knowledge,identity,orabsenceofmistakeoraccident.”

PriorBadActs:Rule5.404(b)

Statev.Putman,848N.W.2d1(Iowa2014)

•Whetherandwhenpossessionofchildpornographyisadmissibletoprovemotiveorintentinachildsexabusecase.

PriorBadActs:Rule5.404(b)

• Three‐StepPriorBadActsAnalysis•Non‐CharacterPurpose:Motive•Non‐CharacterPurpose:Identity• BalancingProbativeValueversusPrejudicefromOtherWrongsEvidence

Statev.Putman,848N.W.2d1(Iowa2014)

Putman Courtadds“clearproof”asseparateandindependentcomponentoftheanalysisforadmittingotheractevidenceforanon‐propensitypurposeunderrule5.404(b).

Now,admissionofothercrimes,wrongs,oractsrequiresathree‐stepinquiry:

Three‐StepPriorBadActsAnalysis:

1. Isthepriorbadactevidencerelevanttoalegitimate,disputednon‐characterpurpose?

2. Isthereclearproofthatthepartyagainstwhomtheevidenceisofferedcommittedtheotherbadactorcrime?

3. And,finally,doesthedangerofunfairprejudicefromthebadactevidencesubstantiallyoutweightheprobativevalueofthatevidence?[Clearproofremainsabalancingfactor]

Three‐StepPriorBadActsAnalysis:

M MotiveI IntentA Accident(orAbsenceof)M Mistake(orAbsenceof)I Identity

K KnowledgeO OpportunityP Plan/CommonSchemeP Preparation

Non‐CharacterPurpose:MIAMIKOPP

•Motive:“theimpetusthatsuppliesthereasonforapersontocommitacriminalact.”

•Held:Putman’smotiveinsexuallyabusingthetoddlerwasnotindisputebecausePutman’sstateofmindwasnotanelementofthecrimenorotherwiseinissue.

•Question:Isn’tmotiveinissueinanycaseinwhichapersonclaimsthatheorshedidnotcommittheallegedoffense?

Non‐CharacterPurpose:Motive

•Held:(4‐3)thattrialcourtproperlyadmittedevidenceofthetitlesofthetwopornographicvideosforthedisputedpurposeofidentifyingPutman,ratherthangirl’sfather,asperpetratorofsexualabuse.

• Althoughpossession ofchildpornographyisarguablydissimilartothechargedactofchildmolestation,courtmustlookatthe“similaritiesbetweenthecontentsofthematerialspossessedbythedefendantandactscommittedbythedefendant.”Whilea“generalpreoccupationwithchildpornography,”maywellbeinadmissible,videotitlesadmittedagainstPutmanborea“strikingsimilarity”tothespecificcrimeforwhichhewasontrial.

•Question:Does“strikingsimilarity”requirementunnecessarilylimittheuseofotherwrongstoproveidentity?

Non‐CharacterPurpose:Identity

•Statemustprovide“clearproof”thatpriorbadactoccurredandthatdefendantcommittedit.Clearproofdoesnotrequirecorroborationorproofbeyondareasonabledoubt.“[P]roofofpriorbadactsisclearifitpreventsthejuryfromspeculatingorinferringfrommeresuspicion.”

•Questions:Is“clearproof”higherorlowerstandardthanfederalpreponderancestandard?Is“clearproof”apreliminaryquestionoffactorquestionofconditionalrelevance?

Statev.Putman:ClearProof

Inweighingprobativevalueofotheractsevidenceagainstthedangerofunfairprejudice,courtshouldconsider:

“theneedfortheevidence inlightoftheissuesandtheotherevidenceavailabletotheprosecution,whetherthereisclearproof thedefendantcommittedthepriorbadacts,thestrengthorweaknessoftheevidence ontherelevantissues,andthedegreetowhichthefactfinderwillbepromptedtodecidethecaseonanimproperbasis.”

Putman,848N.W.2d.at9‐10(emphasisadded).

403BalancingofProbativeValueofOtherWrongsagainstPrejudice

Extrinsicv.IntrinsicEvidenceandtheInextricablyIntertwinedDoctrine“inseparablecrime”“completethestory”orprovidecontextforthechargedcrime“resgestae”

AvoidingRule5.404(b):TheInextricablyIntertwinedDoctrine

Statev.Nelson,791N.W.2d414,423‐24(Iowa2010)

“[W]ewillonlyallowsuchevidencetocompletethestoryofwhathappenedwhentheothercrimes,wrongs,oractsevidenceissocloselyrelatedintimeandplaceandsointimatelyconnected tothecrimechargedthatitformsacontinuoustransaction....whenacourtcannotseverthisevidencefromthenarrativeofthechargedcrime withoutleavingthenarrativeunintelligible,incomprehensible,confusing,ormisleading....theinextricablyintertwineddoctrineis...anarrowandlimitedexception torule5.404(b).”

CriticismsoftheInextricablyIntertwinedDoctrine

IowaCode§ 701.11

“Inacriminalprosecutioninwhichadefendanthasbeenchargedwithsexualabuse,evidenceofthedefendant’scommissionofanothersexualabuseisadmissibleandmaybeconsideredforitsbearingonanymatterforwhichtheevidenceisrelevant....”

Constitutional?Statev.Reyes,744N.W.2d95(Iowa2008)v.Statev.Cox,781N.W.2d757(Iowa2010)

OtherActsofSexAbuse

•Statev.Cashen,789N.W.2d400(Iowa2010)

•StatutoryProtocol:IowaCode§ 622.10(4)(effective2011)

Physician‐PatientPrivilegeandDisclosureofMentalHealthRecords

inCriminalCases

a.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedinthissubsection,theconfidentialityprivilegeunderthissectionshallbeabsolutewithregardtoacriminalactionandthissectionshallnotbeconstruedtoauthorizeorrequirethedisclosureofanyprivilegedrecordstoadefendantinacriminalactionunless ...:

(2)(a)Thedefendantseekingaccesstoprivilegedrecordsunderthissectionfilesamotiondemonstratingingoodfaithareasonableprobabilitythattheinformationsoughtislikelytocontainexculpatoryinformationthatisnotavailablefromanyothersourceandforwhichthereisacompellingneedforthedefendanttopresentadefenseinthecase.....

IowaCode§ 622.10(4)(effective2011)

• Statev.Thompson,836N.W.2d470(Iowa2013)

• Statev.Neiderbach,837N.W.2d180(Iowa2013)

• Statev.Edouard,854N.W.2d421(Iowa2014)

Physician‐PatientPrivilegeandDisclosureofMentalHealthRecordsin

CriminalCases

Notallowedifsolepurposeofcallingwitnessistoimpeachwitnesswithotherwiseinadmissibleinconsistentstatement.However,thisprincipledoesnotapplyifpriorinconsistentstatementisotherwiseadmissible(eitherunderrule5.801(d)(1)(a)orunderhearsayexception).Statev.Tompkins,859N.W.2d 631(2015).

Impeachment:PriorInconsistentStatements

Rule5.801(d)Statementswhicharenothearsay...1) Priorstatementbywitness.Thedeclaranttestifiesatthetrial orhearingandissubjecttocross‐examination concerningthestatement,andthestatementis...(B)consistent withthedeclarant’stestimonyandisofferedtorebutanexpressorimpliedchargeagainstthedeclarantofrecentfabricationorimproperinfluenceormotive....

RehabilitationofWitnesswithPriorConsistentStatement:

Fed.R.Evid.801(d)StatementsThatAreNotHearsay...1)ADeclarant‐Witness’sPriorStatement.(B)isconsistent withthedeclarant’stestimonyandisoffered:

(i)torebutanexpressorimpliedchargethatthedeclarantrecentlyfabricateditoractedfromarecentimproperinfluenceormotive...;or

(ii)torehabilitatethedeclarant’scredibilityasawitnesswhenattackedonanotherground; ...

2014AmendmenttoFederalPriorConsistentStatementRule

Rulesdifferdependingontypeandageofconvictionandonthetypeofwitness(accusedv.non‐accused)beingimpeached:• Felonyconvictions• Crimesinvolving“dishonestyorfalsestatement”

• Convictionsmorethantenyearsold

ImpeachmentwithPriorConvictions—Rule5.609

Rule5.609Impeachmentbyevidenceofconvictionofcrime.a.Generalrule.Forthepurposeofattackingthecredibilityofawitness:

1) Evidencethatawitnessotherthantheaccused hasbeenconvictedofacrimeshallbeadmitted,subjecttorule5.403,ifthecrimewaspunishablebydeathorimprisonmentinexcessofoneyearpursuanttothelawunderwhichthewitnesswasconvicted,andevidencethatanaccused hasbeenconvictedofsuchacrimeshallbeadmittedifthecourtdeterminesthattheprobativevalueofadmittingthisevidenceoutweighsitsprejudicialeffecttotheaccused;and

ImpeachmentwithPriorFelonyConvictions—Rule5.609

• ReplacesStatev.Martinwith“comprehensive”framework

ImpeachmentwithFelonyConviction:

Statev.Redmond,803N.W.2d112(Iowa2011)

WitnessesOtherThanAccused:“Evidencethatawitnessotherthantheaccusedhasbeenconvictedofacrimeshallbeadmitted,subjecttorule5.403,ifthecrimewaspunishablebydeathorimprisonmentinexcessofoneyearpursuanttothelawunderwhichthewitnesswasconvicted,....”[Rule5.609(a)(1)]• RuleofAdmission• Rule5.403Test

ImpeachmentwithFelonyConviction:

AccusedasWitness:“evidencethatanaccusedhasbeenconvictedofsuchacrimeshallbeadmittedifthecourtdeterminesthattheprobativevalueofadmittingthisevidenceoutweighsitsprejudicialeffecttotheaccused ...”[Rule5.609(a)(1)]• RuleofExclusion• Prosecutionbearsburden• ProbativevalueoutweighsPrejudicialEffect

toAccused

ImpeachmentwithFelonyConviction:

NatureofConvictionandItsUnderlyingConduct

NeedforPriorConvictionEvidence

AgeoftheConvictionandDefendant’sSubsequentHistory

Redmond Balancing:ProbativeValue

NatureofPriorConvictionSimilarityofPriorandChargedOffensesNumberofPriorConvictionsCentralityofCredibilityIssueandNeedforDefendant’sTestimony

Redmond Balancing:PrejudicialEffect

NeedtoHoldProsecutortoBurden

ExplicitOn‐the‐RecordFindingsRecommended

Redmond Balancing:ProbativeValueandPrejudicialEffect

Rule5.609(a)(2):“Evidencethatanywitnesshasbeenconvictedofacrimeshallbeadmitted ifitinvolveddishonestyorfalsestatement,regardlessofthepunishment.”OverrulesStatev.Axiotis (Iowa1997)CrimesofTheft?FederalAdvisoryCommitteeNote:“crimessuchasperjuryorsubornationofperjury,falsestatement,criminalfraud,embezzlement,orfalsepretense,oranyotheroffenseinthenatureofcrimen falsi,thecommissionofwhichinvolvessomeelementofdeceit,untruthfulness,orfalsificationbearingontheaccused’spropensitytotestifytruthfully.”

CrimesofDishonestyorFalseStatementStatev.Harrington,800N.W.2d46

(Iowa2011)

Statev.Dudley,856N.W.2d.668(Iowa2014).• Defendantattemptedtoimpeachgovernmentwitnesswith20‐year‐oldconvictionfortheft.Courtstates,withoutdiscussing,that“theftisacrimeofdishonesty”thatwouldotherwisebeadmissible.

•Convictionsolderthan10yearsold,however,arenotadmissibleunlessprobativevaluesubstantiallyoutweighsprejudice.Courtremandsfornecessarybalancing.

ImpeachmentwithConvictionofCrimeofDishonestyorFalseStatementOver

TenYearsOld:Rule5.609

CriminaldefendantmusttestifyinordertopreserveerrorStatev.Derby,800N.W.2d52(Iowa2011)

Canpreserveerroroninlimine rulingbydisclosingpriorconvictionondirectexaminationStatev.Harrington,800N.W.2d46(Iowa2011)

ErrorPreservation– PriorConvictionImpeachment

Rule5.702: Testimonybyexperts.Ifscientific,technical,orotherspecializedknowledgewillassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactinissue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpertbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationmaytestifytheretointheformofanopinionorotherwise.

ExpertTestimony

•Trialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninprohibitingdefendant’sforensicpsychiatristfromtestifyingthatEdouardmerelyprovided“pastoralcare,”not“pastoralcounseling,”tothewomencongregantswhomhewasaccusedofsexuallyexploiting.

•Anexpertmaynot“providethedefendant’sowndefinitionofthecrime,andthen...explainthedefendanthadnotcommittedit.”

ExpertTestimonyThatImproperlyDefinesCrime

Statev.Edouard,854N.W.2d421(Iowa2014)

•Courtclarifiedthe“verythinline”betweenpermissibleexperttestimonyregardingthegeneralsymptomsorbehaviors exhibitedbyvictimsofsexualabuseandimpermissible experttestimonythataparticularvictimmanifestssymptomsofsexualabuseorexhibitsbehaviors“consistentwith”sexualabusetrauma.

• “Consistentwith”experttestimonyimproperlybolstersthecredibilityofthevictimandcommentsontheguiltorinnocenceofthedefendant.

ExpertTestimonyThatImproperlyBolstersWitnessCredibility• Statev.Dudley,856N.W.668(Iowa2014)• Statev.Brown,856N.W.2d685(Iowa2014)• Statev.Jaquez,856N.W.2d663(Iowa2014)

Openquestionwhether“consistentwith”experttestimonyisadmissibletorebutcontentionthatvictim’sbehaviorwasinconsistentwiththatofanabusedchildorsexabusevictim

(Waterman,J.,concurring).

ImproperBolsteringregardingWitnessCredibility

RebuttalUseofExpertTestimony?

Rule5.703: Basesofopiniontestimonybyexperts.Thefactsordataintheparticularcaseuponwhichanexpertbasesanopinionorinferencemaybethoseperceivedbyormadeknowntotheexpertatorbeforethetrialorhearing.Ifofatypereasonablyrelieduponbyexpertsintheparticularfieldinformingopinionsorinferencesuponthesubject,thefactsordataneednotbeadmissibleinevidence.

•InreDetentionofStenzel,827N.W.2d690(Iowa2013)

•Statev.Neiderbach,837N.W.2d180(Iowa2013)

ExpertTestimony:ReasonableReliance

Rule5.801(c):Hearsay.“Hearsay”isastatement,otherthanonemadebythedeclarantwhiletestifyingatthetrialorhearing,offeredinevidencetoprovethetruthofthematterasserted.

• Statev.Elliott,806N.W.2d660(Iowa2011):Errortoallowpolicedetectivetorelatesubstanceofwhat7‐year‐oldtoldhimduringinterviewsconcerningwhathadhappenedthenightinfantsufferedfatalinjuriesinordertoexplainwhythedetectiveshiftedfocusofinvestigationtodefendant,ratherthanbaby’smother.

Hearsay:Non‐HearsayandResponsiveConduct

Rule5.803(2):Excitedutterance.Astatementrelatingtoastartlingeventorcondition madewhilethedeclarantwasunderthestress ofexcitementcausedbytheevent orcondition.

Hearsay:ExcitedUtterances

Statev.Dudley,856N.W.668(Iowa2014)• Holding: abuseofdiscretiontoadmitasexcitedutterancechild’sdescriptionofsexualabusethatchildgavetoaneighbor36hoursaftertheabuseinresponsetotheneighbor’srepetitiveandpromptingquestions.

• Factors Timelapsebetweeneventandstatement Extenttowhichquestioningelicitedthestatementthatwouldnothavebeenotherwisevolunteered

Ageandconditionofdeclarant Subjectmatterofstatement

Hearsay:ExcitedUtterances

Rule5.803(4):Statementsforpurposesofmedicaldiagnosisortreatment.Statementsmadeforpurposesofmedicaldiagnosisortreatment anddescribing medicalhistory,orpastorpresentsymptoms,pain,orsensations,ortheinceptionorgeneralcharacterofthecauseorexternalsourcethereofinsofarasreasonablypertinenttodiagnosisortreatment.

Hearsay:StatementsforMedicalDiagnosisorTreatment

Two‐PartTest:1. Declarant’smotiveinmakingstatementisconsistentwithpurposeofpromotingtreatment

2. Contentofstatementoftypereasonablyrelieduponbyphysicianintreatmentordiagnosis

Statev.Dudley,856N.W.668(Iowa2014):child’sstatementsregardingabusemadetoa“trainedprofessionalforthepurposesofdiagnosisortreatment,”maybeadmissibleunderrule5.803(4).

Hearsay:StatementsforMedicalDiagnosisorTreatment

Rule5.804(b)(3):Statementagainstinterest.Astatementwhichwasatthetimeofitsmakingsofarcontrarytothedeclarant’specuniaryorproprietaryinterest,orsofartendedtosubjectthedeclaranttocivilorcriminalliability,ortorenderinvalidaclaimbythedeclarantagainstanother,thatareasonablepersoninthedeclarant’spositionwouldnothavemadethestatementunlessbelievingittobetrue.Astatementtendingtoexposethedeclaranttocriminalliabilityandofferedtoexculpatetheaccusedisnotadmissibleunlesscorroboratingcircumstancesclearlyindicatethetrustworthinessofthestatement.

Statev.Paredes,775N.W.2d554(Iowa2009)

StatementAgainstPenalInterest—Rule5.804(b)(3)

2010AmendmenttoFed.R.Evid.804(b)(3):

“(B)issupportedbycorroboratingcircumstancesthatclearlyindicateitstrustworthiness,ifitisofferedinacriminalcaseasonethattendstoexposethedeclaranttocriminalliability.”

StatementAgainstPenalInterest—Rule5.804(b)(3)

Statev.Tompkins,859N.W.2d 631(Iowa2015)• Holding:Domesticabusevictim“subjecttocross‐examination”eventhoughStatecalledvictimonlytoestablishdomesticrelationshipwithdefendant;defendantcouldhavecross‐examinedvictimregardingassaultorcalledvictimasdefensewitness

TheConfrontationClauseandHearsay

RecentIowaCases

Statev.Kennedy,846N.W.2d517(Iowa2014).•Courtaddressedwhethertheadmissionofacertifiedabstractofthedefendant’sdrivingrecords andanaffidavitofmailingofsuspensionnotices inaprosecutionfordrivingwhilerevokedviolatedtheConfrontationClausesoftheUnitedStatesandIowaConstitutions.

•Held: CertifiedabstractofdrivingrecordisNOTtestimonial(affirmingStatev.Shipley,757N.W.2d228(Iowa2008)). AffidavitofmailingofsuspensionnoticesIStestimonial(butharmlesserror).

•Question:Whetherdifferentresultifaffidavitofmailingwascreatedcontemporaneouslywithmailingofnoticesandthenmaintainedinofficialdrivingrecords?

Ohiov.Clark(ArguedMarch2,2015)Issue:(1)Whetheranindividual'sobligationtoreportsuspectedchildabusemakesthatindividualanagentoflawenforcementforpurposesoftheConfrontationClause;and(2)whetherachild'sout‐of‐courtstatementstoateacherinresponsetotheteacher'sconcernsaboutpotentialchildabusequalifyas“testimonial”statementssubjecttotheConfrontationClause.

Statev.Clark,137OhioSt.3d346,999N.E.2d592(Ohio2013),cert.granted,Ohiov.Clark,135S.Ct.43(U.S.No.1352)

TheConfrontationClauseandHearsay

PendingU.S.SupremeCourtCase:ChildHearsay

Warger v.Shauers,135S.Ct.521(2014),affirming721F.3d606,610–12(8thCir.2013).

ImpeachingJuryVerdictwithEvidenceofJurorDishonesty

DuringVoir Dire

Fed.R.Evid.606Juror’sCompetencyasaWitness....(b)DuringanInquiryintotheValidityofaVerdictorIndictment.(1)ProhibitedTestimonyorOtherEvidence.Duringaninquiryintothevalidityofaverdict orindictment,ajurormaynottestifyaboutanystatementmadeorincidentthatoccurredduringthejury’sdeliberations;theeffectofanythingonthatjuror’soranotherjuror’svote;oranyjuror’smentalprocessesconcerningtheverdictorindictment.Thecourtmaynotreceiveajuror’saffidavitorevidenceofajuror’sstatementonthesematters.(2)Exceptions. Ajurormaytestifyaboutwhether:(A) extraneousprejudicialinformationwasimproperlybroughttothejury’sattention;(B) anoutsideinfluencewasimproperlybroughttobearonanyjuror;or(C) amistakewasmadeinenteringtheverdictontheverdictform.

Generallyspeaking,informationisdeemed‘extraneous’ifitderivesfromasource‘external’tothejury.‘External’mattersincludepublicityandinformationrelatedspecificallytothecasethejurorsaremeanttodecide,while‘internal’mattersincludethegeneralbodyofexperiencesthatjurorsareunderstoodtobringwiththemtothejuryroom.

Warger,135S.Ct.at529(citationsomitted).

Externalv.InternalInfluence

“Theremaybecasesofjurorbiassoextremethat,almostbydefinition,thejurytrialrighthasbeenabridged.Ifandwhensuchacasearises,theCourtcanconsiderwhethertheusualsafeguardsareorarenotsufficienttoprotecttheintegrityoftheprocess.Weneednotconsiderthequestion,however,forthosefactsarenotpresentedhere.”

Id.at529n.3.

OpenQuestion

2014Amendments:• PriorConsistentStatements:Fed.R.Evid.801(d)(1)(B)

• BusinessRecords:Fed.R.Evid.803(6)• AbsenceofaRecordofaRegularlyConductedActivity:Fed.R.Evid.803(7)

• PublicRecords:Fed.R.Evid.803(8)

AmendmentstoFederalRulesofEvidence

2013Amendments:

• AbsenceofPublicRecord(CNRs):Fed.R.Evid.803(10)

2010Amendments:

• StatementsAgainstInterest:Fed.R.Evid.804(b)(3)

AmendmentstoFederalRulesofEvidence

ConclusionandShamelessPlug

LaurieKratky Doré7IOWA PRACTICE—EVIDENCE (West2014‐2015)