State of Iowa v. Melvin T. Lucier
15-1559
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Melvin T. Lucier faced two consolidated prosecutions for second-degree sexual abuse of young children; one tried to a jury, the other to the bench.
- In Case 1 (jury), a five-year-old did not testify; pediatrician Dr. Barbara Harre testified that during her medical exam the child stated, “Uncle Tom touched my pee pee,” described locations, and said she was touched "inside" with fingers.
- Defense filed a motion in limine to exclude the child’s statements as hearsay; the district court held an evidentiary hearing and admitted Dr. Harre’s testimony under the medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception.
- Lucier also argued his trial counsel was ineffective for not raising a Confrontation Clause objection to Dr. Harre’s testimony.
- In Case 2 (bench), the judge found Lucier guilty of two counts based on the child’s testimony and a detective’s testimony recounting Lucier’s admissions; Lucier argued insufficiency of evidence and that counsel was ineffective for not moving for the judge’s recusal after the judge had presided over Case 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of child’s statements through Dr. Harre under hearsay exception (Case 1) | State: statements were made for diagnosis/treatment and fall within Iowa R. Evid. 5.803(4) | Lucier: statements were not trustworthy (child didn’t understand truthfulness) and Dr. Harre acted as investigator, not treating physician | Admitted: court affirmed admission under medical-diagnosis/treatment exception |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to raise Confrontation Clause objection to Dr. Harre’s testimony (Case 1) | State: admission consistent with controlling precedent; objection would not have prevailed | Lucier: counsel breached duty by not objecting under Confrontation Clause | Denied: counsel did not breach duty given In re J.C. controlling precedent |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show sex act(s) and multiplicity (Case 2) | State: child’s credible testimony and officer’s testimony (Lucier admitted ~50 incidents) support convictions | Lucier: evidence insufficient to prove a sex act or multiple acts | Affirmed: bench findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to seek judge’s recusal after presiding over earlier trial (Case 2) | State: judge’s awareness of prior proceedings was disclosed and defendant knowingly waived jury; no recusal required | Lucier: prior involvement required recusal motion | Denied: counsel did not breach duty for not seeking recusal; waiver and colloquy weigh against recusal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2016) (explains two-part test and standards for medical-diagnosis hearsay exception)
- State v. Tracy, 482 N.W.2d 675 (Iowa 1992) (adopted two-part Renville test for child-abuse statements in medical setting)
- United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985) (formulation of the two-part test for medical-diagnosis hearsay exception)
- In re J.C., 877 N.W.2d 447 (Iowa 2016) (held Dr. Harre’s testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause; controlling on confrontation claim)
- State v. DeWitt, 811 N.W.2d 460 (Iowa 2012) (courts give deference to credibility findings in bench and jury trials)