State v. Folkerts

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may be absent from the portion of an eyewitness deposition addressing the perpetrator's identity when the defendant's presence would create an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure. The court reversed the district court's order requiring Melissa Folkerts to attend the entire deposition and remanded for further proceedings. Two justices dissented, arguing that the majority improperly created a per se rule and that existing confrontation and due-process principles required affirmance.

Holdings

1. When the identity of the perpetrator is at issue and the defendant timely moves to be absent, the district court may allow the defendant to be absent while the parties question an eyewitness about the perpetrator's identity. Identity questioning should occur at the beginning of the deposition, and the defendant must be present after all parties complete that questioning.
2. The admissibility of an identification obtained through an allegedly suggestive procedure is analyzed first by determining whether the procedure was impermissibly suggestive and, if so, whether the identification was nevertheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant may be absent from the portion of an eyewitness deposition in which the parties question the witness about the identity and physical characteristics of the alleged perpetrator.
2. Whether requiring the defendant to sit beside counsel during such questioning would create an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure violating due process.
3. Whether Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.27 and prior Iowa decisions required the defendant's presence throughout the deposition.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded