Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Sexual Abuse Case Due to Improper Admission of Hearsay Testimony

Iowa Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Sexual Abuse Case Due to Improper Admission of Hearsay Testimony

In State v. Allan Sievers, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed two convictions for second-degree sexual abuse after finding that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence that did not meet the requirements of Iowa’s new “outcry witness” statute.

The case involved allegations from a minor, Leo (a pseudonym), who claimed years later that Sievers, a former fiancé of his mother, had abused him as a child. At trial, the State offered testimony from one of Leo’s childhood friends, Nikki, under Iowa Code section 622.31B(2), which permits out-of-court statements by child victims if they qualify as “an initial disclosure” of abuse.

The problem: Leo testified that he first disclosed the abuse to a different friend, Malcolm, before telling Nikki. Despite this, the trial court allowed Nikki’s testimony. The Supreme Court held that under the statute’s plain language, only the first disclosure qualifies as admissible hearsay. The Court rejected the State’s broader interpretation that would permit multiple disclosures to be treated as “initial.”

The Court found the error prejudicial, especially since Nikki’s testimony helped establish the timing of the alleged abuse—an important issue in the case. Because that testimony may have influenced the jury’s verdict, the Court ordered a new trial.

This ruling reinforces the principle that when the State invokes a hearsay exception, it must strictly comply with the statute’s language, particularly in criminal trials where a defendant’s liberty is at stake.