Opinion
No. 2-207 / 01-1118.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, JOEL E. SWANSON, Judge.
James Mosley appeals from his convictions of second-degree burglary as a habitual offender and assault while participating in a felony as a habitual offender. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Ron Robertson, County Attorney, and Timothy Schott, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
This is James Mosley's second appeal from his convictions of second-degree burglary as a habitual offender and assault while participating in a felony as a habitual offender. Mosley's first appeal, in which he argued that the district court failed to make the findings necessary to determine whether the use of closed-circuit television to receive the victim testimony violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses, resulted in a limited remand to the district court for application of the appropriate legal standard. On this appeal from the district court's ruling on limited remand Mosley contends the district court improperly applied the standards for determining whether his confrontation rights were violated, as set forth in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990).
On this constitutional issue, our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
In Craig, the United States Supreme Court found that a defendant's constitutional rights are not violated by the use of closed-circuit television to receive testimony of a child victim where the State makes an adequate showing that its interest in protecting the child from the trauma of testifying is sufficiently important to justify the special procedure. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 855, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 3169, 111 L.Ed.2d 666, 685 (1990). This determination requires the following findings: (1) the closed-circuit television procedure is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness who seeks to testify; (2) the child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the defendant; and (3) the emotional distress suffered by the child witnesses is more than de minimus, i.e., more than mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify. Id. at 855-56; 110 S.Ct. 3169; 111 L.Ed.2d at 685.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find that the use of closed-circuit television to receive the testimony of the eight-year-old victim, B.W., did not violate Mosley's constitutional rights. Mosley was charged with the above crimes after B.W. awoke to find him in her bed touching her. B.W.'s mother provided uncontroverted testimony that B.W. was traumatized by the incident to the extent that she was still terrified to enter her own bedroom and would not sleep in her own bed. She further testified that she believed B.W. was afraid of being in the same room as Mosley and, resultantly, would be unable to communicate should she be required to testify in his presence. B.W.'s guardian ad litem, after conferring with B.W.'s counselor, concurred in the mother's conclusions.
Based on this testimony, we conclude the district court properly found that special precautions needed to be taken to protect B.W. from the trauma she would experience from being required to testify in the defendant's presence. This contact would clearly further traumatize the child, causing emotional distress far more severe than is caused by a general reluctance to testify. The district court decision is accordingly affirmed in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.