State of Iowa v. Allan Robert Sievers, 23-0413

Allan Sievers was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree following allegations made by Leo (a pseudonym), his former fiancée’s son, about abuse occurring when Leo was a child living with Sievers.
The State’s case included testimony from Leo and his friend Nikki regarding Leo’s prior disclosure of the abuse to her. Sievers objected, arguing Nikki was not the first person Leo told, and therefore her testimony was inadmissible hearsay under Iowa’s outcry statute, Iowa Code § 622.31B.
The district court allowed Nikki’s testimony, interpreting the statute to permit “an initial disclosure,” not limited to just the very first disclosure.
Sievers also challenged the admissibility of edited nude photos from his computer, the scope of the State’s cross-examination, and the appearance of a witness in prison garb and shackles during trial.
The jury convicted Sievers, who appealed on multiple grounds. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding error in the admission of Nikki’s testimony under the outcry statute.

Issue	Sievers' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Nikki’s testimony as outcry	Only the first disclosure permitted under § 622.31B	"An" initial disclosure allows more than the very first, covering Nikki's testimony	Only the first disclosure allowed; admitting Nikki's was error and prejudicial
Retroactive application of § 622.31B	Statute applies only prospectively, not to pre-enactment events	Statute applies as a rule of evidence at any trial after its effective date	Statute applies to trials after effective date
Admission of nude photos under 5.404(b)/(5.403)	Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 5.403	Relevant to motive/sexual interest in children, properly admitted under Rule 5.404(b)	Not reached due to error above (dissent: properly admitted)
Scope of cross-examination & witness attire	Cross and appearance of witness in prison garb unfairly prejudicial	Scope was proper given Sievers' broad direct, and attire procedures were appropriate	Not reached due to error above (dissent: no abuse of discretion/harmless)

State v. Trane, 934 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 2019) (victim’s testimony alone can constitute substantial evidence in abuse cases)
State v. Brown, 996 N.W.2d 691 (Iowa 2023) (articulates standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792 (Iowa 2021) (jury verdict upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693 (Iowa 2016) (reasonable jury standard for evaluating sufficiency)
State v. Jackson, 4 N.W.3d 298 (Iowa 2024) (burden is on proponent to show hearsay exception applies)
State v. Holmes, 325 N.W.2d 114 (Iowa 1982) (scope of cross-examination determined by direct)
State v. Elliott, 806 N.W.2d 660 (Iowa 2011) (standard for harmless error and impact on verdict)