938 N.W.2d 177
Iowa2020Background
- Victim H.M., then 14, reported three instances of sexual abuse by her maternal grandfather Richard Leedom; disclosures occurred amid a bitter custody dispute between H.M.’s parents.
- H.M. told her therapist Jessica Schmidt about the abuse (per H.M.’s deposition); Schmidt is a mandatory reporter but no DHS report from her was produced.
- Leedom moved under Iowa Code § 622.10(4)(a)(2) for an in camera review of Schmidt’s therapy records, arguing they likely contained exculpatory or impeachment material; the district court denied the motion and refused an ex parte hearing.
- Leedom was convicted by a jury on multiple counts; he appealed, raising the § 622.10 claim plus several trial objections (evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, subpoena for prosecutor, and juror dismissals).
- The Iowa Supreme Court held the district court erred by not conducting the required in camera review, reversed that ruling, and remanded for the court to inspect the therapy records; all other claims were rejected and the convictions were conditionally affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Leedom) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §622.10(4)(a)(2) in camera review was required for therapist Schmidt’s records | Denial appropriate because defendant failed to show the requisite reasonable probability of exculpatory material | Records likely contain exculpatory/impeachment evidence (no report despite mandatory reporting; inconsistencies in victim’s accounts) | Court: defendant met statutory showing; remand for in camera review under §622.10(4)(a)(2) |
| Whether an ex parte hearing on the §622.10 motion was required | State: no statutory basis; victim privacy requires State participation | Leedom: ex parte needed to avoid revealing defense strategy to State | Court: ex parte hearing properly denied; State must be heard to protect victim privacy |
| Whether H.M. waived therapist-patient privilege by testifying she told Schmidt | State: H.M.’s deposition statements waived privilege | Leedom: testimony waived privilege and opens records | Court: no waiver—minor cannot validly waive; answering adversary’s questions in deposition does not constitute voluntary waiver |
| Admissibility of therapists’ testimony and defense expert on child fabrication | State: therapists’ records privileged; expert testimony limited; State did not open door | Leedom: needed to impeach H.M. and show mandatory-reporting inconsistency | Held: district court’s preliminary limits proper; Leedom failed to preserve error by not making offers of proof or calling witnesses |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Brazil testimony, nullification, remarks about Terri) | State: expert testimony was general, no vouching; closing remarks within bounds | Leedom: Brazil vouched; prosecutor urged nullification and mischaracterized evidence | Court: no prosecutorial misconduct; Brazil’s general child-abuse testimony permissible; closing argument error not reversible |
| Subpoena of prosecutor to testify at new-trial hearing | State: prosecutor not a proper witness and her thought process protected | Leedom: needed Krisko’s testimony to prove misconduct | Court: subpoena properly quashed; prosecutor not a State witness and mental impressions protected |
| Excusal of three prospective jurors for work conflicts | State: excusals justified as hardship | Leedom: court should have probed reasons before excusing (constitutional challenge) | Court: judge should have probed, but excusals were within discretion and defendant not prejudiced; no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 2013) (upholding §622.10(4) in‑camera protocol and balancing confidentiality with defendants’ rights)
- State v. Cashen, 789 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 2010) (prior rule allowing broader access to therapy records that prompted legislative change)
- DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2011) (impeachment evidence can be material and require disclosure)
- State v. Neiderbach, 837 N.W.2d 180 (Iowa 2013) (ordering remand for in camera review of related records)
- State v. Edouard, 854 N.W.2d 421 (Iowa 2014) (reversing denial of in camera inspection and remanding)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (impeachment evidence falls within Brady obligations)
- State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 2016) (distinguishing prosecutorial error from prosecutorial misconduct)