Opinion
No. 12–2270.
2014-01-9
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Demetrice de Angelo TOMPKINS, Defendant–Appellant.
While acknowledging the district court restricted the State's direct examination of the witness about her statements, the majority assumes too much in deciding there was no restriction on Tompkins' cross-examination of the witness. Because the record on direct appeal alerts us to negotiations between counsel and discussions with the court occurring off the record regarding the scope of cross-examination of the complaining witness, we do not know the extent of the court's orders. A restriction on the defense's right to cross-examine would be a limitation on the scope of examination that would “undermine the process to such a degree that meaningful cross-examination within the intent of the Rule no longer exists.” Owens, 484 U.S. at 561–62. I would reserve this claim for full development of the facts in postconviction proceedings.