Opinion
No. 1-716 / 01-0618.
Filed December 28, 2001.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, MARK J. EVELOFF, Associate Juvenile Judge.
Minor child D.D. appeals a juvenile court order finding he had committed the delinquent act of second-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Stephen P. Broghammer, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Jennifer Panko-Rahe, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
David appeals his delinquency adjudication for sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and 709.3 (1999), which was based on charges of sexual contact with an eight-year-old girl. Upon review we find this matter fits the criterion outlined in Supreme Court Rule 9, for the issuance of a memorandum opinion.
Scope of Review . Juvenile delinquency proceedings are reviewed de novo. In re J.D.F., 553 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1996). We give weight to the juvenile court findings, especially when considering witnesses credibility, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(7). A juvenile delinquency adjudication requires proof of the underlying acts beyond a reasonable doubt. In Interest of D.L.C., 464 N.W.2d 881, 883 (Iowa 1991); Iowa Code § 232.47(10) (1999).
Burden of Proof . The victim's version of events was corroborated by hearing testimony from a YMCA program director and the victim's mother and brother, as well as the deposition testimony of a treating therapist and an examining pediatrician with specialized training in physical and sexual abuse. The only directly contradictory testimony was provided by David himself, and a review of the juvenile court's order clearly demonstrates it found the victim's testimony to be more credible than that presented by David. We see nothing in the record to contradict this credibility assessment. David argues the State nevertheless failed to meet its burden, as the medical evidence refutes the allegation he inserted his penis into the victim's vagina. We cannot agree.
The examining pediatrician reported abnormal hymen damage consistent with vaginal penetration. Although the victim's family doctor initially assessed the victim's hymen as normal and intact, he admitted during a deposition his examination had involved less sophisticated equipment than that used by the examining pediatrician, and he deferred to her findings. While David's family doctor opined that penile penetration should have resulted in more serious damage to the victim's hymen, he had never examined the victim, admitted to having far less training and expertise that the examining pediatrician, appeared to be assuming full penile penetration had occurred, was basing his opinion, at least in part, on his examination of sexually active women, and admitted "if the penis was not inserted much beyond the hymen, it probably would not tear significantly." Given the foregoing, we find the juvenile court correctly determined the testimony of the examining pediatrician was entitled to the greatest weight.
The combination of the witness testimony and medical evidence demonstrates, beyond a reasonable doubt, that David was guilty of sexual abuse in the second degree. Contrary to David's assertions, reasonable doubt is not engendered by the fact he had no prior juvenile or criminal record, was calm during the police interview, engaged in church activities, was shy about undressing in gym class, and presented five witnesses who said they never observed him engaging in inappropriate behavior. The delinquency adjudication must be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.