State v. Cuevas

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Medina

    No. 22-0199 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023)

    (1) The trial court must hear evidence and determine whether use of the closed-circuit television procedure is "necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness," (2) the trial court must find that "the child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the presence of the defendant," and (3) "the trial court must find that the emotional distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the defendant is more than de minimis, i.e., more than 'mere nervousness or excitement or some reluctance to testify.'" State v. Cuevas, No. 08-1344, 2009 WL 3337606, at *9 n.3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2009) (quoting Craig, 497 U.S. at 855-56).

  2. State v. Aguilar

    872 N.W.2d 198 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

    We review the defendant's constitutional claims de novo. See State v.. Cuevas, No. 08–1344, 2009 WL 3337606, at *8 (Iowa Ct.App. Oct. 7, 2009). We review the district court's decision to allow the child to testify by closed-circuit television pursuant to Iowa Code section 915.38(1) for the correction of legal error.

  3. Cuevas v. State

    871 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

    He was convicted, and this court affirmed the judgment and sentence. See State v. Cuevas, No. 08–1344, 2009 WL 3337606, at *12 (Iowa Ct.App. Oct. 7, 2009). He filed an application for postconviction relief on December 21, 2010.

  4. State v. Hicks

    863 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

    Our court repeatedly has rejected the same or similar challenge Hicks makes in this case. See, e.g., Rupe, 534 N.W.2d at 444 ; State v. Cuevas, No. 08–1344, 2009 WL 3337606, at *9–10 (Iowa Ct.App. Oct.7, 2009) ; State v. Paulson, No. 06–0141, 2007 WL 461323, at *5–6 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb.14, 2007) ; State v. Bailey, No. 01–0955, 2002 WL 31308238, at *1–3 (Iowa Ct.App. Oct.16, 2002) ; State v. Mosley, No. 00–0094, 2001 WL 293221, at *2–4 (Iowa Ct.App. March 28, 2001). Hicks acknowledges the contrary authority, but he does not distinguish his case or offer any other reason to deviate from these prior decisions.