Background
After a bench trial, Chad Reese Bennett was convicted of three counts of second-degree sexual abuse for sex acts committed against M.S., a ten-year-old girl who lived near him. M.S. testified that she repeatedly left home at night to visit Bennett and described penile-vaginal, digital-vaginal, and penile-anal contact. Police found M.S.’s sweatshirt at Bennett’s home, and a neighbor saw Bennett with someone matching her description early on June 29, 2020.
The district court allowed M.S. to testify by closed-circuit video. It also reviewed her counseling and psychiatric records in camera, disclosing records it found relevant before trial but declining further disclosure after reviewing more than 3,400 pages. The court imposed twenty-five-year terms on each count, ordered counts I and II consecutive, and ran count III concurrently.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed in full. Bennett did not preserve his Iowa constitutional confrontation claim because, although he cited the state constitution in resisting the protective order, he made no developed state-law argument and obtained no ruling on it. He also did not challenge on appeal the district court’s statutory finding permitting the closed-circuit procedure.
After conducting its own in-camera review, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in withholding additional counseling and psychiatric records. Any potentially exculpatory information had already been disclosed, and M.S.’s privacy interests outweighed cumulative disclosure.
Substantial evidence supported the convictions, including M.S.’s credited testimony and corroborating circumstances. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a new trial and no sentencing error: the sentencing judge expressly declined to consider improper portions of the victim-impact statement and did not rely on them.
Key Takeaways
- A bare reference to the Iowa Constitution does not preserve a distinct state constitutional claim without argument and a ruling.
- Additional privileged therapy records need not be disclosed when potentially exculpatory information was already provided.
- A sentencing court’s express disclaimer of improper victim-impact material defeats a resentencing claim absent evidence of reliance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores Iowa’s preservation requirements for constitutional claims, particularly where later precedent might otherwise support relief. It also illustrates appellate deference to trial courts’ credibility findings in bench trials and to their in-camera handling of confidential mental-health records.