State of Iowa
v.
Derek Michael White
Derek Michael White seeks further review of the court of appeals opinion that affirmed his conviction for neglect or abuse of a dependent child, a class “C” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 726.3 and two counts of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury, class “D” felonies, in violation of Iowa Code sections 726(1)(a)–(b) and (7). The court of appeals rejected White’s argument that the closed-circuit testimony approved by Iowa Code section 915.38(1)(a) violates article I, section 10 of the Iowa Constitution. Further, the court found the testimony of the children’s therapist justified allowing them to testify against their father by closed-circuit television.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Derek Michael White
Attorneys for the Resister
Genevieve Reinkoester
Susan Krisko
Attorney for the Applicant
Rachel C. Regenold
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Feb 21, 2024 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Osceola County, Shayne Mayer, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, J. (22 pages)
Derek White appeals his convictions for neglect of a dependent person and two counts of child endangerment. He seeks reversal based on five issues: (1) closed-circuit testimony by two child witnesses violated his right to confrontation under the Iowa Constitution; (2) the State did not prove that he caused the child’s injuries or had custody when they were inflicted; (3) the district court erred by denying his request for a jury instruction approved in civil cases; (4) the court abused its discretion by not clarifying the marshalling instructions in response to a jury question; and (5) the court erred in finding he had the reasonable ability to pay over $10,000 in category “B” restitution. OPINION HOLDS: Finding no constitutional violation, substantial evidence to support the verdicts, and proper instructions for the jury, we affirm his convictions. We also uphold the restitution order.