Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 07–0237
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
Appellant.
APPEL, Justice.
resulting in serious injury. The charges arose after his infant child was
that she “may have” caused the baby’s injuries. The court of appeals
the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district
the time of the events relevant to this proceeding, Paredes was twenty-
four years old, Millard was sixteen years old, and the baby was two
months old. The family was living in the home of Paredes’ sister, Wendy
the police officers, Paredes was defensive, asking the officers, “What are
shaken-baby syndrome. The fact that the infant was not properly
Detective Robbie Swank met with Paredes and Millard. Both denied any
knowledge of how the child was injured. They did admit, however, that
they were the child’s only caregivers during the period in question, except
for a brief fifteen-minute period when Paredes’ sister cared for the baby.
with the couple. Leau informed the parents that all future visits with the
Leau wondered whether Paredes “was just saying that so that Cassidy
commented that Paredes should not say something simply for her sake.
Millard was outside smoking and shook the baby when it would not stop
arrested.
time, Paredes asked Swank whether anyone ever testified falsely in order
to protect someone else and whether the detective thought he had hurt
shaking the baby. Paredes then denied shaking the infant. Swank told
Paredes he did not appreciate him “treating this like a game” and asked
At this point, Paredes returned to his initial claim and once again
jail. Paredes suggested that he and Millard should not have admitted
they were the only caregivers and instead should have pointed the finger
at some of the older kids in the home. Paredes apologized for his
inconsistencies.
she had prior contact. Because of the nature of the call, Gail
responded:
She said she did not know, but her boyfriend (Edwin, I think)
was in jail for it. She said that he did not do it, though. She
then asked me if her diagnosis was Multiple Personality
Disorder, because sometimes she doesn’t remember what
she does. I asked her if she meant like the time she
threatened to kill/stab me. (This was when she was in
Valley Shelter 2 years ago.) She said yes, that’s what I
mean.
Gail told Millard that she did not believe Millard had been
with Gail by telephone, he did not interview Millard again. On May 5, the
chambers, with only a brief record made after the fact. On the record,
Bollweg about the memorandum, its contents, and their responses to it.
6
Paredes stated that he was not presenting the evidence for the truth of
the matter asserted, but instead argued that the actions of Swank and
district court denied it. In a ruling on the record, the district court held
district court further concluded that the statements did not meet the
Evidence 5.804(b)(3).
attributed to Millard would not subject her to criminal liability, but were
affirmed his conviction. The court of appeals concluded that because the
was preserved. On the merits of the claim, however, the court of appeals
concluded that Paredes failed to show that Millard was unavailable for
879 (Iowa 2003). This court, however, reviews hearsay claims for
7
State v. Hallum, 585 N.W.2d 249, 254 (Iowa 1998), vacated on other
grounds by Hallum v. Iowa, 527 U.S. 1001, 119 S. Ct. 2335, 144
The State claims that Paredes has failed to preserve the issue he now
issue which the court of appeals held prevented Paredes from offering her
switched horses in midstream. At trial, the State claims, Paredes did not
offered the evidence only for a narrow purpose—to show the responsive
While Paredes did not specify that ground in the reported oral
argument on the motion in limine and the district court’s order granting
the original motion is cryptic, the district court in its ruling for
We have previously held that where a question is obvious and ruled upon
695 N.W.2d 23, 27–28 (Iowa 2005). As a result, we hold that the
On the other hand, we hold that the State has not preserved the
appeals decided in favor of the State on this ground, the State did not
raise the issue in its appellate brief. At oral argument before this court,
counsel for the State candidly and properly conceded that the issue had
been waived. We agree and decline to preserve an issue which the State
has not raised in brief and concedes is not properly before the court.
1Counsel should develop a clear record at trial rather than assume that the
district court will rule on the issue and that an appellate court will find that the issue
was obvious to trial participants. By failing to make a clear record, counsel takes an
unnecessary risk that the issue, which could be vital to the prosecution or defense, will
not be preserved.
9
liability . . . that a reasonable person in the declarant’s
position would not have made the statement unless believing
it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to
criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not
admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly
indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
Our rule of evidence is identical in all relevant aspects to its federal
interpretation of our state rule. State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585, 593
(Iowa 2003). Federal case law, however, is not binding, and we are free
to develop our own approach to legal questions under the Iowa rule.
In this case, Paredes claims that the trial court should have
statements made by Millard include: her statement that she had begun
spanking her two-month-old baby, her statement that Paredes did not
hurt the baby and her hinting that maybe she was responsible, her
statement that she did not want Paredes to take the fall, her questions
their admission into evidence. Paredes notes that he and Millard were
the child’s only caregivers during the time when the injuries were
ride to the hospital was not quite what one would expect of a new
however, testified that she had observed Millard treat the infant
10
made them unless they were true. The State stresses that Millard, in
fact, did not admit to anything. The State argues that Millard spoke only
hypothetically and that she was primarily upset because she did not
want her boyfriend to take the fall. Rather than admitting guilt, the
that Millard’s statements, which were made a week after the assault and
after she had numerous opportunities to acknowledge her role but did
that caused her to forget her culpability, were not made under oath,
interest, the history of the development of the federal rule, and the
11
subsequent case law that has developed under the federal rule and
was more broadly applied than is the case under modern practice. The
Duck].
exceptions was the notion that a reasonable person would not make a
statements against penal interest. Id. In a much cited case, the House
of Lords in The Sussex Peerage, 8 Eng. Rep. 1034 (H.L. 1844), refused to
law opinions cited concern that declarations against penal interest might
of the declarant by shifting most of the blame for the criminal offense to
12
Penal Interest and the Confrontation Clause, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 159, 162
States, 228 U.S. 243, 33 S. Ct. 449, 57 L. Ed. 820 (1913). Over a dissent
concluding that the approach in The Sussex Peerage was not worthy of
L. Ed. at 833–34.
clear rule that was easy to apply. But the one-size-fits-all rule also had
David Robinson, Jr., From Fat Tony and Matty the Horse to the Sad Case
Cases, 32 Hous. L. Rev. 895, 898 nn. 8–9 (1995). While the approach in
13
Practice and Procedure completed its first draft of the Federal Rules of
statements against penal interest when it issued the official draft of the
that the new rule could potentially undermine effective law enforcement.
Id. at 873.
this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was a denial of due process to
1049, 35 L. Ed. 2d at 313. While Chambers did not involve a case where
the declarant was unavailable, it did stand for the proposition that under
time of its making was “so far contrary” to a declarant’s interest, or that
reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not have made the
Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), which prohibits
15
assertions. Or, the term could mean individual factual assertions along
term “statement” in Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 114 S. Ct.
2431, 129 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1994). Prior to Williamson, federal courts were
wrote for the majority that each individual statement within a narrative
rule. Williamson, 512 U.S. at 600–01, 114 S. Ct. at 2435, 129 L. Ed. 2d
people who are not especially honest, tend not to make self-inculpatory
statements unless they believe them to be true.” Id. at 599, 114 S. Ct. at
2435, 129 L. Ed. 2d at 482. On the other hand, she noted that
_____________________________
the prosecution from offering into evidence testimonial admissions against the accused
under the Confrontation Clause. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S. Ct. at 1374, 158
L. Ed. 2d at 203.
16
narrative with other statements that do not have the same level of
testimony, the district court must sift through it and admit the wheat
our rule, a statement against penal interest must have “so far tended” to
statement.
implicitly demands that the person knew or at least believed that the
Fishman, Jones on Evidence, Civil and Criminal § 36:67, at 584 (7th ed.
degree. Some cases indicate that a statement does not come within the
United States v. Bonty, 383 F.3d 575, 579 (7th Cir. 2004). The rationale
Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 509 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Toney, 599
F.2d 787, 790 (6th Cir. 1979); United States v. Hyde, 574 F.2d 856, 863
(5th Cir. 1978). These cases tend to emphasize the “so far tended”
are the kinds of statements that should be admitted under the rule. 4
Given the broad and general language of the rule, especially the “so
interest. See United States v. Thomas, 571 F.2d 285, 288–89 (5th Cir.
1978); United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244, 251 (lst Cir. 1976).
There also is a question regarding the proper result when there are
States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 218 (2d Cir. 2006). While the statement
itself is clearly against penal interest, the father also has a strong motive
to lie to protect his son. Under these circumstances, some courts have
18
See United States v. Pena, 527 F.2d 1356, 1361 (5th Cir. 1976) (finding
statement, the issue is best resolved by the jury. Cf. United States v.
Candoli, 870 F.2d 496, 509 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that conflicts in a
statement against interest goes to the weight the jury should afford the
Fishman treatise admits that there is no firm rule on how the issue
We conclude that the use of the term “tended” in the rule suggests
question for the jury to consider. State v. DeWitt, 597 N.W.2d 809, 811
19
under this rule is the scope of the corroboration requirement when the
whatsoever to the crime. Cronan, 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. at 21. While the
corroborating circumstances.
of the declarant. See United States v. Forest, 355 F.3d 942, 955 (6th Cir.
2004), rev’d on other grounds by Garner v. United States, 543 U.S. 1100,
20
125 S. Ct. 1050, 160 L. Ed. 2d 1001 (2005). Other courts have indicated
was made. See United States v. Barone, 114 F.3d 1284, 1295–96 (lst Cir.
1997).
Given the broad, general language of the last sentence of the rule,
but the district court could consider a wide variety of facts and
son. Paulino, 445 F.3d at 219–20. On the other hand, where there are
statement, the mere fact that a father is exculpating a son may not bar
admission. United States v. Paguio, 114 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 1997).
determinations that are outside the proper scope of the judicial role.
United States v. Amerson, 185 F.3d 676, 692 (7th Cir. 1999) (Posner,
C.J., dissenting).
State v. Martinez, 621 N.W.2d 689, 693–94 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000).
While the term “clearly” is a relatively strong term, the word “indicating,”
take this kind of approach. See, e.g., United States v. Doyle, 130 F.3d
523, 543–44 (2d Cir. 1997); United States v. Garcia, 986 F.2d 1135,
excluded. On the other hand, if a declarant is tied to the time and place
against interest under rule 5.804(b)(3). She stated that Paredes “did not
do it,” that he “would not hurt the baby,” that she “does not want her
boyfriend to take the fall” for the child’s injuries, that Paredes “is not that
kind of guy, not violent,” and that he “did not take care of the baby that
context. Except for a brief fifteen-minute interval when the baby was
cared for by Paredes’ sister, Millard and Paredes were the infant’s only
23
inculpatory. She stated that the baby had been crying, that she yelled at
him to “shut up,” and that she had “started spanking him lately,” which
she claimed did not hurt him since he wore a diaper. Yelling “shut up”
discovered that she did hurt the baby. Although she at no time directly
admitted that she was responsible for the injuries, an inquiry about
potential sanctions tends to suggest that she may have been responsible.
While it is true, as the State asserts, that Millard couched her questions
she needed to consult with her attorney. After the conversation, she
3The State at oral argument conceded that the statement about spanking a two-
month-old would likely be a statement against interest, but suggested that the evidence
would be merely cumulative. The State notes that at trial, Paredes’ sister testified that
Millard spanked the child. Paredes’ sister, however, could have been motivated to shift
blame for the child’s injuries away from her brother. As a result, we do not find the
evidence cumulative.
24
Gail when the social worker “kept talking to her as if she did it” amounts
Evidence Law and Issues of Race, Class, Gender, and Ethnicity, 28 Sw. U.
(4th Cir. 2001); Marshall v. Young, 833 F.2d 709, 716 n.3 (7th Cir. 1987).
question best left for another day. While we have traditionally accepted
should be received with caution. Friedman v. Forest City, 239 Iowa 112,
v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1074–76 (9th Cir. 1975). As a result, the
5.804(b)(3).
N.W.2d at 811.
was not directly involved in the case. On its face, it appears that Millard
was seeking advice from Gail and not trying to manipulate the system.
Paredes’ sister.
have been made in good faith and that it could be true. Under the record
error analysis and ask: “ ‘Does it sufficiently appear that the rights of the
29 (Iowa 2004) (quoting State v. Trudo, 253 N.W.2d 101, 107 (Iowa
27
harmless. In this case, Paredes put forth a general denial defense. The
law enforcement.
its only available theory, namely, that Millard was responsible for the
the jury’s likely questions of where the mother was and why she did not
testify in the case. See Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1005–06 (9th Cir.
best and only evidence of innocence). On this record, the State has not
V. Conclusion.
conviction on the ground that Paredes failed to show that Millard was
from evidence in Paredes’ trial. Under all the facts and circumstances,
we conclude that the error was not harmless. As a result, the decision of
All justices concur except Cady, J., who dissents and Baker, J.,
reaching its decision that branch out too far from the trunk of the legal
principle from which they are derived. I would affirm the decisions of the
The majority correctly identifies that the standard of review for the
for making the statement. This approach is not only inconsistent with
applying the law to existing evidence. Iowa R. Evid. 5.104(a). Once the
courts decide the evidence is admissible, the jury determines its weight
and credibility. Iowa R. Evid. 5.104(e).
the trustworthiness of the statement), the jury, not the court, should
are apparent: “Many motives, apart from the love of truth and justice,
induce men to assume the gravest risks.” Brown v. State, 55 So. 961,
962 (Miss. 1911). The new rule declared by the majority today transfers
a historical judicial function to the jury and essentially gives the jury the
The new rule created by the majority is detached from the purpose of
creating exceptions to the rule against hearsay and conflicts with the
time-honored role of the court in the trial of a case. It gives juries power
well beyond their traditional role and undercuts the importance of cross-
trial courts must first decide legal questions, and appellate courts review
fairness, which has given rise to the principle that neither party to a case
may normally assert a claim or defense on appeal they could have, but
failed to, raise at trial. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 63 (Iowa 2002).
raised the claim that the hearsay testimony of the social worker was
claiming on appeal that the district court erred by failing to admit the
were not proven by Paredes. The State failed to argue on appeal that the
evidence was inadmissible because the district court erred in finding that
the decision of the district court, but on the basis that there was
factor does not preclude Paredes from raising such a ground on appeal, it
should not preclude the State from raising a ground relied on by the
court preserved error for Paredes, the court of appeals preserved error for
32
the State. This approach is only a matter of fairness and does not
required from the inception to establish all of the requirements for the
this requirement.
benefit of a new trial (with the right to have the disputed evidence
admitted) without ever proving all the essential legal requirements for
admission.
the same manner for both parties. This is unfair and contrary to the
dictates of DeVoss. Id. Our law should not have rules that do not apply
III. Conclusion.