April 15, 2005

Crawford decision on confrontation clause not retroactive; Sufficient proof of choking despite victim's recantation

State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23 (Iowa 2005) (4/15/2005) [1] Crawford not retroactive A domestic abuse victim recanted her initial report to authorities and testified for the defendant at trial. On appeal, the defendant claimed trial counsel was ineffective for not raising a confrontation clause objection to admission of the 911 tape of the victim's statements. The Iowa Supreme Court held that while it was not clear that the defendant's confrontation rights were violated under the standard announced in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), it would not apply that decision retroactively to support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.  (Defense counsel did not breach a duty in not anticipating the federal court's change in confrontation clause analysis. Citing adherence to "judicial restraint," the Court declined to address the application of Crawford to "the myriad questions presented by a recanting or nontestifying spouse in a domestic abuse case.")  [2]  Sufficient proof of choking despite victim’s recantation – The defendant’s wife called 9-1-1 to report that she and her husband were having a fight and that he was choking her. When police responded the victim was crying and agitated. Officers also observed an inch-long red mark on her neck. She told officers that the defendant choked her with both hands and she gave them a handwritten statement recounting the incident. By the time of the trial, the victim had recanted. She testified for the defense, claiming that the defendant never put his hands on her neck. The Iowa Supreme Court upheld the conviction on appeal, noting: "Admissible hearsay can be used to support a conviction just as other admissible evidence."