State of Iowa v. Shanna Dessinger

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed Shanna Dessinger’s conviction for child endangerment arising from an incident at a daycare. The court addressed hearsay involving a child’s nonverbal demonstration, preservation of Confrontation Clause and ineffective-assistance claims, and the district court’s ability-to-pay determination for restitution and related costs. It affirmed the conviction, affirmed in part and reversed in part the sentencing order, and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. D.A.J.'s nonverbal demonstration was an out-of-court assertive statement offered to prove that Dessinger choked him and therefore constituted hearsay.
2. The nonverbal demonstration did not qualify as a present-sense impression because it was a recalled description of a past event made in response to questioning rather than a spontaneous contemporaneous description.
3. The nonverbal demonstration qualified as an excited utterance and was admissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(2).
4. Admission of the hearsay evidence did not warrant reversal because the evidence was nonprejudicial.
5. Dessinger failed to preserve her Confrontation Clause claim because she did not object when the evidence was presented at trial and the district court never ruled on the constitutional issue.
6. The ineffective-assistance claims concerning failure to object to Confrontation Clause evidence and Officer Samuelson's opinion testimony were preserved for postconviction-relief proceedings because the record was insufficiently developed to determine counsel's strategy.
7. The case had to be remanded so Dessinger could use the procedures under Iowa Code section 910.2A and obtain a reasonable-ability-to-pay hearing under section 910.7 concerning the remaining restitution obligations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether D.A.J.'s nonverbal demonstration of the alleged choking was hearsay.
2. Whether the nonverbal demonstration was admissible under the present-sense-impression exception.
3. Whether the nonverbal demonstration was admissible under the excited-utterance exception.
4. Whether objections preserved challenges to testimony concerning D.A.J.'s demonstration and verbal statements.
5. Whether Officer Samuelson's testimony repeating information supplied by D.A.J.'s parents was inadmissible hearsay.
6. Whether Dessinger's Confrontation Clause claim was preserved for appellate review.
7. Whether the ineffective-assistance claims should be resolved on direct appeal or preserved for postconviction-relief proceedings.
8. Whether the district court was required to conduct a reasonable-ability-to-pay determination concerning court costs and correctional fees under Iowa's revised restitution framework.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded