State v. Castaneda, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 98-0835) (Iowa 1/18/2001).  Sexual abuse and confrontation clause.  [1]  404(b) ("other acts") evidence:  probative vs. prejudicial value. Assuming without deciding the relevance of 404(b) evidence, (that defendant's wife performed oral sex on him while he watched children play) offered to prove the intent element of one of four crimes with which defendant was accused -- indecent contact with a child, the court abused its discretion in allowing such evidence.  Defendant was not convicted of the specific intent crime.  He was convicted of second-degree sexual abuse by contact between his mouth and the child's genitalia; an act the jury was likely to have improperly inferred from the 404(b) evidence.  Additionally, the balancing test was not met.  The limiting instruction did not forbid the jury from considering the 404(b) evidence in light of all charges, not just the specific intent charge.  The danger of unfair prejudice from the 404(b) evidence outweighed its probative value. [2] "Psychological unavailability" under confrontation clause. In order for a victim to qualify as psychologically unavailable to satisfy the "unavailability" prong of a confrontation analysis, it must be shown that it would be "relatively impossible and not merely inconvenient" for the witness to attend or testify. Although not an exclusive list (the Court directs the reader to State v. Rojas, 524 N.W.2d 659 (Iowa 1994)), the following factors should be considered: "(1) the probability of psychological injury as a result of testifying, (2) the degree of anticipated injury, (3) the expected duration of the injury, and (4) whether the expected psychological injury is substantially greater than the reaction of the average victim of a rape, kidnapping or terrorist act . . . ."  [NOTE:  this opinion supplants that issued in this case on July 6, 2000)