Opinion
No. 2-771 / 02-0257
Filed October 30, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Daniel Block, Associate Juvenile Judge, and Jeffrey L. Harris, District Associate Judge.
A juvenile appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent for committing sexual abuse in the second degree. He also appeals from a dispositional order denying his request for civil commitment proceedings. AFFIRMED.
Michael Lanigan, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Ferguson, County Attorney, and Melissa Smith, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
J.W., a juvenile, appeals from an order adjudicating him delinquent for committing sexual abuse in the second degree. He contends there was insufficient evidence to support the delinquency finding. He also claims the court abused its discretion in failing to order a commitment hearing. We agree with the findings of the juvenile court and affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On September 14, 2001, fourteen-year-old J.W. spent the night at his cousins' home. Approximately three families live in the house, including the alleged six-year-old victim and his mother.
The following day Officer Mark Shoars was summoned to the residence to investigate potential sexual abuse of the victim. The victim's mother told Officer Shoars that J.W. sexually assaulted her son. Officer Shoars also spoke with the victim's seven-year-old cousin, S.M., who observed the incident.
After speaking briefly with the victim, Shoars advised the victim's mother to take him to the hospital for evaluation. Later, Shoars interviewed the victim at the hospital. The victim indicated that J.W. asked him to take off his pants and his underwear and lay facedown on the bed. The victim also indicated that J.W. had placed his penis in him. In a videotape statement two days later, the victim indicated that J.W. instructed him to remove his pants. When he declined, J.W. removed his pants for him.
On October 2, 2001, police interviewed J.W. at the police station. The next day, a delinquency petition was filed charging J.W. with sexual abuse in the second degree. On October 4, 2001, the court placed J.W. with the Department of Juvenile Court Services for suitable detention placement and ordered J.W. to have no contact with children under the age of twelve.
The adjudicatory hearing was held on November 19, 2001. The court entered an order on December 7, 2001, adjudicating J.W. a delinquent. The court continued his care with juvenile court services and ordered outpatient psychological treatment. The child's delinquency was confirmed in a later dispositional hearing. At the dispositional hearing, the court denied J.W.'s request for a civil commitment hearing and ordered completion of an outpatient sexual abuse program. J.W. appeals.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of juvenile delinquency proceedings is de novo. In re T.V., 563 N.W.2d 612, 613 (Iowa 1997). We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court, especially when considering credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. In re C.T., 521 N.W.2d 754, 756 (Iowa 1994).
III. Sufficiency of the Evidence.
J.W. claims the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed second-degree sexual abuse. In support of his argument, he contends the testimony and statements given by the victim and his cousin, S.M., are not credible. He also points out that the examination of the victim at the hospital revealed no evidence of a sexual assault.
The burden of proof is on the State to prove the juvenile engaged in delinquent conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. See Iowa Code § 232.47(10) (2001). Any sex act performed by a person with another who is a child is sexual abuse. Iowa Code § 709.1(3). A child is any person under the age of fourteen and a sex act includes contact between the genitalia of one person and the anus of another person. Id. §§ 702.5, 702.17. Second-degree sexual abuse occurs when a person sexually abuses a person under the age of twelve. Id. § 709.3(2).
The victim gave testimony which supports the juvenile court's conclusion that J.W. committed sexual abuse in the second degree on the victim by causing contact between J.W.'s genitalia and the anus of the child. S.M.'s testimony substantiates the victim's version of the events. She saw J.W. lying on top of the victim moving around while both had their pants and underwear pulled down. The juvenile court found J.W.'s version of the events was not credible. The court further found J.W.'s contention that the victim and his extended family had conspired against him was without merit.
Giving due deference to the juvenile court's assessments of credibility, we find there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the court's finding that J.W. committed sexual abuse in the second degree. Accordingly, we affirm the court's adjudicatory order.
IV. Commitment Hearing.
J.W. asserts the court abused its discretion in failing to direct civil commitment proceedings. In a subsequent dispositional order, the court denied J.W.'s request, pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.51, to withhold disposition and direct the juvenile court officer or the department to initiate civil commitment proceedings under Iowa Code chapter 229.
The pertinent statutory language provides in part:
If the evidence received at an adjudicatory or a dispositional hearing indicates that the child is mentally ill, the court may direct the juvenile probation officer or the department to initiate proceedings or to assist the child's parent or guardian to initiate civil commitment proceedings in the juvenile court.Id. § 232.51 (emphasis added).
As indicated, the statute provides the juvenile court with discretion to direct civil commitment proceedings if evidence indicates that the child is mentally ill. It is not mandatory. In making its decision, the court considered the court-ordered psychological/psychosexual evaluation conducted by Dr. Rick Jennings. Based on his findings, the court concluded J.W. does not suffer from a mental illness and thus, civil commitment proceedings were not appropriate. Even if the court had concluded J.W. was mentally ill, it still had discretion regarding the initiation of commitment proceedings. We agree with the court's decision that the evidence was insufficient to indicate J.W. was mentally ill. Therefore, civil commitment proceedings were not in order and the court appropriately continued care with juvenile court services and ordered completion of outpatient sexual abuse treatment. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a commitment hearing for J.W.