State of Iowa v. Demetrice De'angelo Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631

In June 2012 police responded to a domestic dispute at Tompkins and A.H.’s apartment; Officer Jurgensen observed injuries on A.H. and A.H. told the officer Tompkins had pushed her onto concrete.
A.H. later wrote the court recanting that account (saying she tripped); the State nonetheless charged Tompkins with domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury.
Defense moved in limine under State v. Turecek to prevent the State from calling A.H. solely to introduce prior statements for impeachment; the court limited questioning of A.H. but allowed her to be called to establish the domestic relationship.
At trial the State called A.H. only briefly; it then elicited A.H.’s out-of-court statements through Officer Jurgensen, the court admitting them as excited utterances over defense hearsay objection; defense did not further object on Confrontation Clause grounds.
On cross, Officer Jurgensen testified that another intoxicated witness told him Tompkins pushed A.H.; defense did not move to strike that unsolicited hearsay. Tompkins did not recall A.H. or present any defense; jury convicted.
Tompkins appealed claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing (1) to object under the Confrontation Clause to A.H.’s statements admitted through the officer, and (2) to object/move to strike the officer’s recounting of the other witness’s statement. The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting under the Confrontation Clause to Officer Jurgensen relaying A.H.’s out-of-court statements	Tompkins: counsel breached duty by not raising a Crawford-based Confrontation Clause objection; A.H. testified but was not questioned about those statements, so Tompkins lacked effective confrontation	State: A.H. was present and available for cross-examination; the Confrontation Clause is satisfied when declarant appears at trial	Counsel was not ineffective; objection would have been meritless because A.H. was available to be cross-examined and could have been recalled after the statements were admitted
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object and move to strike the officer’s recounting of another witness’s out-of-court statement	Tompkins: the officer’s repetition was hearsay that tended to prove Tompkins pushed A.H., so counsel should have objected and sought a strike/admonition	State: the statement explained the officer’s investigation and why the witness was not called, thus not offered for truth	Record is inadequate on direct appeal to decide whether counsel breached an essential duty on this point; the statement appears hearsay, but trial strategy is unclear so the claim is preserved for postconviction proceedings

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay barred unless declarant unavailable and prior cross-examination occurred)
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (Confrontation Clause requires prosecution to present witnesses and not force defendant to produce adverse witnesses)
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) (prior reliability-based test for admitting hearsay under Confrontation Clause; later superseded by Crawford)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219 (Iowa 1990) (prohibits the prosecution from calling a witness to give unfavorable testimony solely to introduce otherwise inadmissible impeachment evidence)
State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775 (Iowa 1999) (factors for admitting excited utterance hearsay exception)