State of Iowa v. Shanna Dessinger
958 N.W.2d 590
Iowa2021Background
- In May 2018 Shanna Dessinger, a daycare worker at Tracey’s Tots, was charged with child endangerment for allegedly choking and pushing a 4‑year‑old (D.A.J.).
- The prosecution did not call D.A.J.; two employees testified: Demetria Gully (teen coworker) witnessed the event and said D.A.J. later demonstrated being choked, and supervisor Cori Jewett heard crying, saw the demonstration, and told the child’s father.
- Officer Paul Samuelson testified that D.A.J.’s parents reported abuse at the police station, prompting investigation; Officer had no first‑hand knowledge of the event.
- Trial testimony included nonverbal demonstrations by D.A.J. related by Gully and Jewett and parents’/officer’s descriptions of statements; Dessinger testified the incident, if it occurred, was accidental.
- Jury convicted Dessinger of child endangerment; district court ordered payment of court costs (but $0 attorney fees); appellate review followed focusing on hearsay, Confrontation Clause, ineffective assistance, and ability‑to‑pay for restitution.
- Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, held certain hearsay admissible as excited utterances, found Confrontation Clause and some hearsay objections were not preserved, preserved some ineffective‑assistance claims for postconviction proceedings, and remanded for resentencing on restitution/ability‑to‑pay issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dessinger) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of D.A.J.’s nonverbal demonstration (choking gesture) | Nonverbal conduct is admissible under hearsay exceptions (present sense or excited utterance) | Demonstration is hearsay and inadmissible; deprived Dessinger of ability to confront declarant | Demonstration was hearsay but admissible as an excited utterance (not present sense impression) |
| Testimony recounting D.A.J.’s verbal statements to father and officer | Statements were admissible (cumulation/explanation of officer conduct) | Verbal out‑of‑court statements are hearsay and testimonial; admission violated hearsay and confrontation rules | Verbal statements to officer were inadmissible hearsay if used for truth; officer testimony repeating complaint was improper, but record ambiguous on counsel strategy; Confrontation Clause claim not preserved at trial |
| Confrontation Clause (testimonial character of child’s statements) | No preserved objection; district court limited hearsay but did not rule on Confrontation Clause | Pretrial motion raised clause; admission deprived Dessinger of cross‑examination of declarant | Not preserved for appeal (no contemporaneous trial objection and no explicit ruling at trial) |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to hearsay/Confrontation/Officer testimony | Counsel should have objected to hearsay and Confrontation Clause violations and to officer’s opinion of credibility | Counsel may have had strategic reasons; some failures did not prejudice because statements admissible; record incomplete | Claims concerning hearsay objections to admissible excited utterances rejected; other ineffective‑assistance claims (Confrontation, officer opinion) preserved for postconviction relief for further record development |
| Sentencing: district court’s failure to determine reasonable ability to pay court costs | Court must make ability‑to‑pay determination under new statutory scheme (S.F. 457/§910.2A/2B); prior orders convert to permanent restitution | Order directing defendant to pay court costs without ability‑to‑pay finding is improper | Remanded for resentencing/ability‑to‑pay hearing under statutory framework; restitution portion vacated pending that process |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775 (Iowa 1999) (sets five‑factor test for excited utterance admissibility)
- State v. Galvan, 297 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1980) (treated certain nonverbal demonstrations as hearsay assertions)
- State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2003) (discusses when nonverbal conduct is an assertive statement)
- State v. Mateer, 383 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 1986) (addresses timing for excited utterance exception)
- State v. Harper, 770 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2009) (examines spontaneity and stress for excited utterance admission)
- State v. Doughty, 359 N.W.2d 439 (Iowa 1984) (warns against officers repeating victims’ complaints as hearsay)
- State v. Hawk, 952 N.W.2d 314 (Iowa 2020) (interprets reasonable‑ability‑to‑pay requirements for court costs under the revised restitution framework)