Title: State v. Fontenot

State: louisiana

Issuer: Louisiana Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 
 
No. 19–0295 
 
Submitted November 18, 2020—Filed April 23, 2021 
 
 
STATE OF IOWA, 
 
 
Appellee, 
 
vs. 
 
TIMOTHY MICHAEL FONTENOT, 
 
 
Appellant. 
 
 
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. 
 
 
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. 
Grady, Judge. 
 
 
Defendant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision 
affirming his conviction for two counts of indecent contact with a child.  
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT 
AFFIRMED. 
 
 
Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which 
Waterman, Mansfield, and McDermott, JJ., joined.  McDonald, J., filed a 
dissenting opinion in which Appel and Oxley, JJ., joined. 
 
 
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart 
(argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. 
 
 
2 
 
 
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl Soich (argued), Assistant 
Attorney General, Jerry Vander Sanden, County Attorney, and Jordan N. 
Schier, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. 
 
 
 
3 
 
CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice. 
 
In this case, over the defendant’s objection, the jury was shown a 
video recording of a child’s forensic interview where the child discussed 
the defendant’s sexual abuse of her.  This interview occurred at the time 
the child reported the abuse, and long before criminal charges were 
brought.  The video was shown to the jury after defense counsel cross-
examined the child at trial and suggested she had fabricated her criminal 
trial testimony by pointing out inconsistencies principally between her 
criminal trial testimony and her criminal case deposition.  The district 
court allowed the jury to see the video only once and instructed the jury 
that the video could only be used as a tool to assess the child’s credibility.  
The district court also allowed the criminal case deposition to be read to 
the jury.  The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of two counts of 
indecent contact with a child.   
The defendant appealed, claiming it was error to let the jury see the 
interview.  The court of appeals affirmed.  We granted the defendant’s 
application for further review.  On our review, we now conclude the video 
was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Iowa Rule of 
Evidence 5.801(d)(1)(B).  We affirm the defendant’s convictions and 
sentence. 
I.  Background Facts and Proceedings. 
The defendant, Timothy Fontenot, was like an uncle to H.N.  His 
brother, Joe, was in a long-term relationship with H.N.’s mother.  During 
the events at issue, H.N. was eleven years old and lived with her mother, 
Joe, and other siblings in Marion, Iowa.  Fontenot was frequently around 
H.N. and her best friend and communicated with them on Facebook 
Messenger.  In July 2016, H.N. and her friend discussed how Fontenot 
 
4 
 
would touch them inappropriately.  H.N. also told her younger sister about 
the inappropriate touching.   
The younger sister was in bed with their mother at night and told 
her Fontenot had been touching H.N.  When her mother spoke with H.N. 
that night, H.N. initially denied the allegation, but later in the same 
conversation, she said that Fontenot was touching her inappropriately.  
The next morning, July 14, 2016, Joe went to the Marion Police 
Department to report the allegations against his brother.  H.N. was taken 
to a local hospital at the instruction of the police.  On July 15, H.N. was 
taken to St. Luke’s Child Protection Center (CPC), where she discussed the 
sexual abuse with a forensic interviewer.  The interview was video recorded 
and lasted approximately fifty-five minutes.   
In the video recorded CPC interview, H.N. spoke specifically about 
the most recent time Fontenot touched her.  She told the interviewer they 
were in her brother’s room on a couch while her brother sat in a chair 
playing video games when Fontenot rubbed her “private spot” (vagina) 
underneath her underwear and put his finger in her private spot.  She 
explained he would put his hand underneath the bottom half of her shorts 
and underwear.  She noted she would have a blanket over her and he 
would go underneath the blanket.   
H.N. explained Fontenot first started touching her when she was 
seven or eight, only rubbing her pants at first before progressing to 
touching her private spot as she got older.  She stated the first time he 
touched her private spot, she was ten years old and in her bedroom.  H.N. 
said she was playing on her iPad while on her bed and Fontenot was on 
the floor on his knees when he touched her private spot.  She noted the 
touching normally happened on her bed or her brother’s couch, and she 
discussed how Fontenot would call the inappropriate touching “tickle 
 
5 
 
time.”  She added that Fontenot gave her UGG boots to get tickle time.  
H.N. also explained that her phone data and Wi-Fi were on Fontenot’s 
cellular plan instead of her parents’ plan and that he used this 
arrangement as a way to get “tickle time.”  She discussed how Fontenot 
would flip her and her friend up onto his shoulders, at which time he 
would sometimes touch their private spots. 
On June 28, 2017, the State charged Fontenot with two counts of 
sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 
709.1, 709.3(1)(b), and 903B.1 (2016), with H.N. named as the victim.  
Fontenot was also charged with two counts of indecent contact with a 
child, an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 
709.12(1) and 903B.2, as to H.N.’s friend.  On February 14, 2018, about 
nineteen months after her videorecorded CPC interview, defense counsel 
took H.N.’s deposition with Fontenot present in the same room.  H.N. had 
not reviewed her CPC interview summary or watched the recording of it.  
She told defense counsel Fontenot last touched her inappropriately in July 
of 2016.  She thought that the incident occurred in her brother’s room 
while he was playing video games.  She said that a blanket was tucked in 
around her and that she was wearing shorts.  She told defense counsel 
she thought something happened but wasn’t sure.  She thought the 
touching was just above her clothes, but she could not remember. 
During her deposition, H.N. also described a time Fontenot touched 
her in her room while she was in bed.  After several more questions, 
defense counsel came back to this incident.  H.N. stated she was not sure 
if Fontenot touched her under her clothes or above her clothes.  She told 
defense counsel she thought Fontenot had been touching her since she 
was six or seven and would rub up her thigh.  She affirmed she could not 
remember a time when Fontenot’s fingers went inside her vagina.  She said 
 
6 
 
he bought her UGG boots and gave her a cell phone.  H.N. affirmed the 
inappropriate touching went on for years and happened more times than 
she could count in her room, her brother’s room, and the living room.  She 
noted there were times he would accidentally touch her private spot when 
flipping her up onto his shoulders but those times were not included in 
her total count of times he touched her inappropriately.   
On February 28, the State filed a notice of intent to present H.N.’s 
CPC video interview under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.807, the residual 
hearsay exception, or alternatively under Iowa Rule of Evidence 
5.801(d)(1)(B), the rule excluding prior consistent statements as hearsay, 
if the defense claimed H.N.’s statements were fabrication.  On 
December 17, the State filed an unresisted motion to amend the trial 
information to reflect two additional counts of indecent contact with a 
child, an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 
709.12(1) and 903B.2, as to H.N. 
Fontenot’s jury trial began on December 17, 2018.  H.N. took the 
stand as a witness for the State.  Prior to trial, H.N. had not reviewed any 
of her statements, video recordings, or deposition.  She testified Fontenot 
bought her items like a cell phone and UGG boots to get extra “tickle time,” 
his term for inappropriate touching.  When asked about the first time 
Fontenot did something bad to her, she explained she was six or seven 
when he rubbed her leg while on a camping trip.  She testified Fontenot 
mostly touched her inappropriately in her bedroom or her brother’s room.  
She said that at first, he would rub her legs, similar to the camping trip, 
but progressed over time to rubbing her private spot underneath her 
underwear.  She noted Fontenot rubbed her private spot with his hand in 
her bedroom during the day and would not say anything to her while 
touching her.   
 
7 
 
She testified the last time Fontenot touched her, he rubbed her 
private spot with his hand.  She stated he put his fingers inside her private 
spot once when she was in her brother’s room while he was playing video 
games.  She also explained Fontenot would sometimes put a blanket over 
her to touch her.   
At trial, H.N. described how Fontenot would touch her and her best 
friend on the private spot by picking them up and putting them on his 
shoulders and then flipping them back down, one at a time.  She testified 
Fontenot would “touch us like fast and then wait and then touch—like 
touch us back down when we were going back down.”  H.N. noted there 
were times he flipped her and did not touch her private spot and it was 
possible the touching was sometimes an accident.  However, she affirmed 
she never felt it was an accident when he touched her underneath her 
clothing. 
On cross-examination, defense counsel began by reminding H.N. of 
the deposition: 
Q. . . . And did you understand at that time that you 
were supposed to tell the truth?  A. Yes. 
Q. Because most of what you just testified to you didn’t 
tell me on that occasion.  
Defense counsel went on to emphasize apparent inconsistencies between 
her trial testimony and what she had previously said in both her 
February 14, 2018 deposition and her July 15, 2016 CPC interview.  For 
example, he addressed the incident in her brother’s room she testified to, 
but he asserted, “[Y]ou didn’t even think that you got touched on that 
occasion.”  He also brought up an incident she discussed in the deposition, 
noting it “sounds a little bit like what you were talking about here today . 
 
8 
 
. . .  Except the difference was that you said you weren’t sure that you were 
in your brother’s room.”   
Defense counsel selectively read back sections of the deposition 
where H.N. said she wasn’t sure on certain things.  He repeatedly 
questioned whether H.N. understood she was to tell the truth.  Parts of the 
questioning related specifically to her memory and how it could have 
improved at the trial in comparison to the deposition.  He read the portion 
of the deposition in which she affirmed she did not remember a time 
Fontenot’s fingers went inside her vagina.  He impeached her testimony 
about Fontenot first touching her on her legs when she was around seven 
on a camping trip by noting she never discussed a camping trip in her 
deposition or the CPC interview. 
Following H.N.’s testimony, the State argued to the district court 
that defense counsel’s cross-examination opened the door for admission 
of the CPC interview because defense counsel implied her testimony was 
not consistent and was recently fabricated.  The State additionally argued 
the video should be admissible under the residual hearsay exception.  
Defense counsel objected to admission of the CPC video at trial.  In the 
event the CPC video was admitted, Fontenot requested H.N.’s deposition 
also be admitted with a redaction.  The State agreed to admission of the 
redacted deposition.   
The district court determined the video was admissible, explaining: 
Though I think it’s rather close, much closer than there are in 
other cases where the person has a much more pronounced 
inability to remember and the child is younger, I think in 
terms of the context and how the questions were asked and 
answered, I think that’s appropriate and in this case, because 
of the nature of [H.N.’s] testimony, rises to a level of necessity. 
The video was shown to the jury once and was not allowed in the jury room 
during deliberations.  The redacted deposition was also read aloud to the 
 
9 
 
jury.  The district court included a jury instruction that as to any 
statement not made under oath, “only use the statement as a basis for 
disregarding all or any part of the witness’s testimony.”  Thus, the 
statements in the CPC video were allowed as an instrument for the jury 
only to assess H.N.’s credibility as a witness and not treated as substantive 
evidence. 
The jury found Fontenot guilty of two counts of indecent contact 
with H.N.  It also found Fontenot not guilty of the two counts of indecent 
contact with H.N.’s friend.  On February 15, 2019, the district court 
sentenced Fontenot to confinement for a period of 300 days, with all but 
120 days suspended, for each count, and with the sentences to run 
concurrently.  The court additionally placed Fontenot on special probation 
for ten years under Iowa Code section 903A and required him to register 
as a sex offender under section 901A.  On February 20, Fontenot filed a 
timely notice of appeal.  The court of appeals affirmed his conviction.  We 
granted further review. 
II.  Standard of Review. 
We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion.  State v. 
Paredes, 775 N.W.2d 554, 560 (Iowa 2009).  However, the standard of 
review for hearsay is for errors at law.  Id.   
III.  Analysis. 
The State argues the CPC video was admissible as a prior consistent 
statement under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801(d)(1)(B), under the residual 
exception to hearsay in rule 5.807, or under Iowa Code section 915.38.  
Fontenot contends the CPC video is hearsay evidence and was not 
admissible on any ground.  Although it is unclear from the record exactly 
which rule the district court relied on in determining the video was 
admissible, this does not prevent us from upholding the district court’s 
 
10 
 
admission of the video if it was properly admissible on any ground.  See, 
e.g., Giza v. BNSF Ry., 843 N.W.2d 713, 724–25 (Iowa 2014) (noting a 
district court’s evidentiary ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground); 
DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 62 (Iowa 2002) (explaining we consistently 
apply an exception for evidentiary rulings to our error preservation rule).  
Upon our review, we conclude the CPC video was admissible as a prior 
consistent statement under Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801(d)(1)(B).   
Hearsay is a statement the declarant makes other than while 
testifying at the current trial that is offered “to prove the truth of the matter 
asserted in the statement.”  Iowa R. Evid. 5.801(c)(2).  Hearsay is generally 
inadmissible unless the rules of evidence, Iowa Constitution, or an Iowa 
Supreme Court rule provide otherwise.  Id. r. 5.802.  Therefore, we need 
not address whether the video would have been admissible on any other 
ground.  A witness’s prior consistent statement is admissible as 
nonhearsay if  
[t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination 
about a prior statement, and the statement . . . [i]s consistent 
with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an 
express or implied charge that the declarant recently 
fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or 
motive in so testifying.   
Id. r. 5.801(d)(1)(B).  A witness’s prior consistent statement is admissible 
under 5.801(d)(1)(B) “only if the statement was made before the alleged 
improper motive to fabricate arose.”  State v. Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160, 
164 (Iowa 1995) (adopting the bright-line federal rule for timing set out in 
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 115 S. Ct. 696 (1995)).  The 
requirements for rule 5.801(d)(1)(B) are as follows: 
(1) [T]he declarant must testify at trial and be subject to 
cross-examination concerning the prior statement; (2) there 
must be an express or implied charge of recent fabrication or 
improper influence or motive against the declarant; (3) the 
 
11 
 
prior statement must be consistent with the declarant’s 
challenged in-court testimony; and (4) the prior consistent 
statement must be made before the alleged motive to fabricate 
or improper influence arose. 
7 Laurie Kratky Doré, Iowa Practice Series: Evidence § 5.801:7, at 903 
(2020–2021 ed. 2020) (footnotes omitted).   
Contrary to the dissent, rule 5.801(d)(1)(B) does not require that the 
proponent of the evidence and the district court must specifically identify 
the charge of recent fabrication.  Because Iowa caselaw is contrary to such 
a position, the dissent understandably cites no Iowa caselaw as authority 
for its position.  We may affirm admission of evidence if it was properly 
admissible on any ground, including as a prior consistent statement.  See, 
e.g., State v. Reyes, 744 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa 2008); Giza, 843 N.W.2d at 
724–25; DeVoss, 648 N.W.2d at 62.  For example, in State v. Brotherton, 
we concluded testimony of a social worker was admissible as a prior 
consistent statement although the trial court had not admitted it as such 
and had given jury instructions that the testimony was not to be 
considered as substantive evidence.  384 N.W.2d 375, 380 (Iowa 1986) 
(en banc); see also State v. Jespersen, 360 N.W.2d 804, 806 (Iowa 1985) 
(determining hearsay statements were admissible as prior consistent 
statements although the trial court admitted them as excited utterances). 
In this case, defense counsel opened the door for admission of the 
CPC video when he repeatedly implied during his cross-examination of 
H.N. that “most of what you’ve just testified to” was fabricated, she was 
not telling the truth, and her story at trial was inconsistent with her prior 
statements.  The district court then admitted the CPC video because of 
“the context and how the questions were asked and answered.”   
A.  Timing Requirement.  A prior consistent statement must be 
made before the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence arose.  
 
12 
 
Johnson, 539 N.W.2d at 165.  Fontenot maintains the timing requirement 
is not met because the CPC interview occurred after H.N. accused Fontenot 
of sexual abuse.  Fontenot only cites State v. Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160, 
for authority.   
In Johnson, this court determined that the district court had 
erroneously admitted video of a child’s CPC interview at trial as a prior 
consistent statement under rule 5.801(d)(1)(B).  Id. at 160.  The defendant 
testified his daughter made up sex abuse allegations against him after he 
told her he might schedule her for an overnight visit at a Masonic 
Children’s Home.  Id. at 161.  He considered scheduling this visit because 
of difficulties he and her mother were having disciplining her, concerns 
they had about her current boyfriend, and the fact that her mother and 
her “were not getting along.”  Id.  He further testified that he believed his 
daughter would rather live in a local foster home than be forced to end 
contact with her boyfriend, as might happen if she was placed in the 
Masonic home or continued to reside with him.  Id.  The child’s CPC 
interview occurred after the defendant had threatened to place her in the 
Masonic home.  Id. at 161.  We concluded the video was not admissible as 
a prior consistent statement because the video was recorded after the 
daughter’s alleged motive to fabricate arose.  Id. at 163–65; see also United 
States v. Bercier, 506 F.3d 625, 629 (8th Cir. 2007) (determining that 
conversations victim had shortly after a sexual assault she said occurred 
in defendant’s bedroom did not qualify as prior consistent statements 
when the defendant charged that she fabricated the story immediately 
after she left his bedroom). 
On the same day we decided Johnson, we issued our decision in 
State v. Capper, 539 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1995), abrogated on other grounds 
by State v. Hawk, 616 N.W.2d 527 (Iowa 2000) (en banc).  In Capper, two 
 
13 
 
children testified the defendant had sexually abused them.  Id. at 364.  At 
trial, defense counsel vigorously cross-examined the children, challenging 
their credibility.  Id. at 365.  To impeach their testimony, he introduced 
portions of their depositions taken prior to trial.  Id.  One of the children, 
N.S., denied in her deposition that defendant had at any time tried to touch 
her breast or to rub her in the vagina area.  Id. at 366.  However, N.S. 
testified at trial that the defendant had touched her on her stomach, 
crotch, and vagina.  Id. at 365.  Defense counsel implied the children 
changed their story after he had deposed them.  Id. at 366.  Following 
cross-examination, the district court allowed a deputy sheriff to testify as 
to statements N.S. made to him before her deposition was taken.  Id.  The 
deputy sheriff testified N.S. stated defendant touched her breast and 
vagina.  We determined the deputy sheriff’s testimony, which preceded 
N.S.’s deposition, was properly admitted as a prior consistent statement.  
Id. 
The record in this case is distinguishable from Johnson, where the 
defendant alleged the child had fabricated the entire story, and more like 
Capper, where defense counsel implied at trial the children had changed 
their stories since their depositions.  Perhaps anticipating this, defense 
counsel asserted for the first time at oral arguments that Fontenot’s 
defense has been that H.N. made up the allegations because Fontenot 
threatened to take away the cell phone he paid for her to have.  Our review 
of the record shows defense counsel never brought this alleged motive to 
fabricate into evidence or discussed it in its brief.  The record shows the 
State offered the CPC interview as evidence after defense counsel 
suggested H.N.’s testimony at trial had changed and was inconsistent from 
her CPC interview and deposition, not to rebut a charge that H.N. made 
up the story to keep her cell phone.  Thus, in this case, unlike in Johnson, 
 
14 
 
it is not an alleged motive for making up the initial allegations that is at 
issue but rather defense counsel’s cross-examination where he implied 
H.N. was changing or fabricating her story on the stand or in her 
deposition taken on February 14, 2018.  See id.; United States v. Wilkinson, 
754 F.2d 1427, 1433 (2nd Cir. 1985) (allowing admission of witness’s prior 
consistent statement after defense counsel on cross-examination brought 
out inconsistencies between witness’s statements on the stand and 
statements made previously). 
Fontenot argues that because the CPC interview occurred after H.N. 
accused Fontenot of sexual abuse, the interview is not admissible as a 
prior consistent statement.  As discussed above, this argument fails to 
recognize that in this case, the charge of fabrication arose at trial when 
defense counsel focused on inconsistencies between the deposition and 
the trial testimony.  See United States v. Ruiz, 249 F.3d 643, 648 (7th Cir. 
2001) (allowing admission of prior consistent statements after defense 
counsel’s cross-examination implied the witness had fabricated on the 
stand by noting his testimony included observations his prior statements 
had not mentioned); Brotherton, 384 N.W.2d at 380 (determining defense 
counsel’s cross-examination made a charge of recent fabrication as 
required under rule 5.801(d)(1)(B) when questioning related to the child’s 
present memory and whether the child’s story on the stand was made up), 
modified by Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160; cf. United States v. Beaulieu, 194 
F.3d 918, 920 (8th Cir. 1999) (determining out-of-court statements were 
not admissible at trial as prior consistent statements when defense 
counsel did not assert victim had fabricated her account of the abuse until 
closing arguments).  The CPC interview occurred two days after the last 
alleged incident of abuse, the deposition occurred nineteen months later, 
and H.N.’s trial testimony occurred ten months after that.  At trial, defense 
 
15 
 
counsel claimed H.N. was fabricating or changing her story and impeached 
her with portions of her deposition.  If defense counsel used H.N.’s 
deposition to imply recent fabrication and impeach her on cross-
examination, then the CPC video that occurred first and closest to the last 
allegation of abuse should also be admitted for the jury’s consideration.  
At earliest, Fontenot’s charge of fabrication or change in story arose at 
H.N.’s deposition on February 14, 2018.  Therefore, the requirement that 
the prior consistent statement occur before the recent charge of fabrication 
arose is met in this case.   
B.  Implied Charge of Recent Fabrication.  A prior consistent 
statement is admissible only if it is offered to rebut an express or implied 
charge of recent fabrication.  In State v. Jespersen, a testifying witness, 
Stephanie Clark, had first made a statement to a man named Ivan Snow 
that the defendant said he was going to kill the deceased.  360 N.W.2d at 
806.  Clark later made a second statement to police officers that defendant 
said he was going to stab the deceased.  Id. at 807.  Clark made a third 
statement at trial that defendant told her he was going to kill the deceased.  
Id.  On cross-examination, defense counsel pointed out the inconsistencies 
between her trial testimony and what she had previously stated to police 
officers—particularly that she had spoken of killing rather than stabbing.  
Id.  We concluded that “the implication of this line of questioning was that 
Clark was lying in her trial testimony when she said defendant used the 
word ‘kill’ rather than ‘stab.’ ”  Id.  Thus, we determined Ivan Snow’s 
testimony as to Clark’s first statement to him that the defendant said he 
was going to kill the deceased was admissible as a prior consistent 
statement.  Id. 
State v. Brotherton, 384 N.W.2d 375, is also instructive.  There, the 
child first made statements to a social worker that the defendant had 
 
16 
 
sexually abused her.  Id. at 380.  The child made a second round of 
statements in a deposition.  Id.  At trial, the child gave a third round of 
statements that defendant had sexually abused her.  Id.  Defense counsel 
vigorously cross-examined the child partly on matters contained in the 
deposition.  Id.  Defense counsel denied he made any charge of recent 
fabrication or improper motive or influence in his cross-examination.  Id.  
We disagreed because parts of the cross-examination related to matters 
such as the child’s present memory, whether the child made up the story 
testified to at trial, and the mother preparing the child for trial.  Id.  
Consequently, under the rule for admission of prior consistent statements, 
the social worker was allowed to testify as to the child’s first round of 
statements that were consistent with her trial testimony.  Id. at 380–81. 
The present case follows the same factual scenario.  H.N. first made 
certain statements to the CPC interviewer.  For example, she stated 
Fontenot put his finger inside her vagina once.  She also stated the last 
time he touched her was in July 2016 in her brother’s room while her 
brother played video games.  H.N. made a second round of statements in 
her deposition.  She asserted she could not remember a time Fontenot’s 
fingers were inside of her.  She second-guessed whether she could 
remember if Fontenot had touched her in her brother’s room while he 
played video games in July 2016.  H.N. then made a third round of 
statements at trial where she testified to various details including that 
Fontenot put his finger inside her and described the last time he 
inappropriately touched her as happening in her brother’s room while he 
played video games in July 2016 and defense counsel vigorously cross-
examined H.N. by focusing on apparent inconsistencies in her statements 
at the deposition and trial.  See United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071, 
1080 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining if defense counsel had impeached the 
 
17 
 
child witness with an intervening inconsistent statement, then the child’s 
consistent prior statement made shortly after the last incident of alleged 
abuse would be admissible to rehabilitate the child’s credibility).   
On appeal, Fontenot does not deny defense counsel made an implied 
charge of recent fabrication during his cross-examination of H.N.  Our 
review of the trial transcript shows defense counsel implied H.N.’s story at 
trial had changed from her deposition and was fabrication.  Furthermore, 
the district court judge observed defense counsel’s demeanor and tone 
during cross-examination and determined the video was admissible 
because of “how the questions were asked.”  This is not a situation where 
defense counsel merely pointed out H.N. had made prior inconsistent 
statements.  He repeatedly implied she was fabricating and questioned her 
present memory and truthfulness.  See Brotherton, 384 N.W.2d at 380 
(finding charge of recent fabrication when questioning related to child’s 
present memory); State v. Jenkins, 326 N.W.2d 67, 71 (N.D. 1982) 
(allowing witness to testify to child’s prior statements alleging abuse when 
cross-examination attempted to establish the child or her mother made up 
a story about the abuse).  
He stated no less than seven times during cross-examination of H.N. 
in various iterations that “all we wanted you to do was to tell the truth” at 
the pretrial deposition.  A jury could reasonably infer H.N. had fabricated 
her testimony from this repeated line of questioning.  See United States v. 
Young, 105 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1997) (affirming admission of a prior 
consistent statement after defense counsel inadvertently elicited witness 
testimony from which a jury could possibly infer the witness had 
fabricated his testimony); United States v. Patterson, 644 F.2d 890, 900 
(1st Cir. 1981) (determining there is a charge of recent fabrication if “[t]he 
jury could have thought it was being suggested that [a witness]’s testimony 
 
18 
 
was recently fabricated”).  Defense counsel made multiple statements 
calling H.N.’s memory into question.  For example, he asked “How is it that 
your memory is better today than it was back in February of this year 
when we talked?” and “Remember that?  That you weren’t having a 
problem with your memory.”  It is hard to imagine how these statements 
could be perceived as anything other than an implication she was 
fabricating at trial.  See Dearing v. State, 691 P.2d 419, 421 (Neb. 1984) 
(per curiam) (finding charge of recent fabrication when “trial counsel cross-
examined the child witness at considerable length with the apparent 
intention of implying that the child’s credibility was questionable”).  On 
top of this, counsel sought to make H.N.’s testimony at trial appear 
inconsistent from her previous statements at least ten times. 
Furthermore, H.N. denied on cross-examination that she omitted 
certain portions of her trial testimony from her deposition. 
Q.  . . .  And did you understand at that time that you 
were supposed to tell the truth?  A.  Yes. 
Q.  Because most of what you’ve just testified to you 
didn’t tell me on that occasion.  Remember that?  A.  I’m pretty 
sure I told you. 
. . . . 
Q.  You told me about an occasion that happened you 
said in Jacob’s room; right?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  When Jacob was there?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  And you told me that you didn’t even think that you 
got touched on that occasion.  Remember that?  A.  No. 
“[W]hen an impeached witness denies making a prior inconsistent 
statement, it is firmly established that even the slightest suggestion of 
fabrication, improper influence or motive, triggers the rule and allows the 
admission of a witness’ prior consistent statement.”  State v. Gardner, 490 
 
19 
 
N.W.2d 838, 840 (Iowa 1992), overruled on other grounds by Johnson, 539 
N.W.2d 160.   
 
Defense counsel additionally cross-examined H.N. as to why she 
never mentioned “to those people that wanted to help you” at CPC that 
Fontenot rubbed her legs when she was around seven years old while on 
a camping trip.  He similarly questioned H.N. at length about why she 
didn’t report the abuse earlier to her mother: 
Q.  And, [H.N.], how do you feel about your mother?  A.  
I love her. 
Q.  And your mother loves you; right?  A.  Yes. 
Q.  And she would not hesitate to protect you, would 
she?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  She would?  A.  No, she would not. 
Q.  All right.  And there she is coming right into the 
room right when this is happening, and you could have said, 
Mom, Tim is doing this to me?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  And there would be no reason for you to not say 
that?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  I’m sorry?  A.  Yeah. 
Q.  If it had actually happened.  A.  It did. 
Q.  So why didn’t you tell your mother? 
There is a strong implication a witness has fabricated on the stand when 
cross-examination inquires at length into why the witness delayed in 
telling others details of a crime.  See, e.g., Young, 105 F.3d at 9 (finding 
cross-examination implied fabrication by highlighting that the witness 
delayed in telling certain observations to others); State v. Saltz, 551 S.E.2d 
240, 246–47 (S.C. 2001) (finding a charge of recent fabrication when 
defense counsel highlighted the witness did not come forward with 
information until thirteen days before trial); Commonwealth v. Thomas, 
 
20 
 
706 N.E.2d 669, 680 (Mass. 1999) (finding cross-examination “strongly 
implied” fabrication by inquiring into why the witness had not immediately 
informed police on certain details).   
The dissent claims defense counsel did not make an implied charge 
of recent fabrication.  If we were to adopt the dissent’s position in this case, 
then the rule might as well be changed to requiring an express charge of 
recent fabrication because all that was left for defense counsel to do was 
outright ask, “and isn’t it true you are fabricating on the stand?”  The 
dissent cites Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1, 23 (Fla. 2003) (per curiam) to 
support its argument.  However, a closer look at the facts of Taylor shows 
this case actually supports the majority’s finding of a charge of recent 
fabrication.   
In Taylor, a police officer testified to a statement the defendant told 
him.  Id. at 22.  The Florida Supreme Court found an implicit charge of 
recent fabrication had not been made on cross-examination because “the 
questioning dealt with the proper preparation of police reports and the 
observation that Noble’s written report did not contain Taylor’s statement.”  
Id. at 23.  Thus, the line of questioning did not imply the officer was 
fabricating on the stand but rather implied “police attempts to identify a 
perpetrator were sloppy and incomplete.”  4 Clifford S. Fishman & Anne T. 
McKenna, Jones on Evidence § 26:38 (7th ed. 2020).  Thus, our finding 
that defense counsel implied recent fabrication in the present case when 
he repeatedly implied H.N. was fabricating on the stand is not at odds with 
Taylor’s holding.   
 
The dissent also cites Jones v. State, 439 P.3d 753 (Wyo. 2019), to 
support its position that defense counsel never implied recent fabrication.  
Jones additionally supports the majority’s position.  The Wyoming 
Supreme Court affirmed a district court’s admission of children’s forensic 
 
21 
 
interviews as prior consistent statements although there were “additional 
detail[s]” and “variation” because “the gist of the prior consistent 
statements is that they address the incidents of alleged sexual abuse that 
are alleged in the six counts in this case.”  Id. at 757.  The court found 
defense counsel implied a charge of fabrication or improper influence 
during cross-examination of the children when “[q]uestions related to 
conversations they had with others” about the alleged sexual abuse, 
whether anyone helped them prepare to testify, and the timing of when a 
photograph was shown to one of the children in which she alleges the 
abuse was pictured occurring.  Id. at 762.  In the present case, defense 
counsel was arguably even more express in his charges of fabrication.  For 
these reasons, we determine defense counsel implied a charge of recent 
fabrication in his cross-examination of H.N. 
C.  Consistency.  Although it is not clear, Fontenot possibly 
challenges the requirement that the prior statement must be consistent 
with the declarant’s challenged testimony.  The vast majority of H.N.’s trial 
testimony is consistent and corroborative with her statements in the CPC 
video.  For example, defense counsel went to great lengths to imply H.N. 
fabricated her testimony that Fontenot first rubbed her legs when she was 
six or seven on a camping trip.  Although not described as occurring on a 
camping trip, she similarly told the CPC interviewer Fontenot first started 
touching her when she was seven by rubbing her legs before it progressed 
to rubbing on her private spot when she was ten.  In addition, defense 
counsel expressly charged she fabricated the abuse she testified happened 
in her bedroom during the day.  However, she discusses this specific 
incident of abuse in the CPC video.   
Fontenot asserted H.N. couldn’t remember in her deposition 
whether Fontenot had touched her on the couch while her brother was 
 
22 
 
playing video games.  She speaks directly to this incident in the CPC video 
and states he touched her.  He noted that in her deposition, she couldn’t 
remember whether Fontenot’s fingers ever went inside of her vagina, in 
contrast to her trial testimony.  She states in the video his fingers went 
inside of her.  Consistent with her trial testimony, she additionally 
discusses in the video how Fontenot bought her UGG boots and a cell 
phone plan as a way to touch her more, would flip her and E.M. and touch 
them inappropriately, would put a blanket over her body to touch her, and 
would go underneath her shorts to touch her. 
The dissent’s reliance on United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071, is 
also misplaced.  We agree with the dissent’s explanation of the factual 
scenario in Kenyon.  The child testified and said certain details about the 
abuse for the first time ever on the stand.  Id. at 1080.  The court of appeals 
held the district court erred by allowing a physician’s assistant to testify 
to the child’s prior statements about other different details.  Id.  This is not 
the same scenario as the present case.   
As discussed above, almost every detail of H.N.’s testimony that 
defense counsel impeached is corroborated by her statements in the CPC 
video.  Furthermore, Kenyon asserts the physician’s assistant’s testimony 
would have been properly admitted as a prior consistent statement if 
defense counsel had presented evidence that the child omitted certain 
details during an “intervening” grand jury appearance that she then 
testified to at trial.  Id.  In that regard, Kenyon is directly on point, as 
defense counsel impeached H.N. by presenting evidence of omissions in 
an intervening deposition.   
There are details in the CPC video that were not discussed by H.N. 
at trial as well as two clearly inconsistent statements.  Fontenot points 
out, for example, that at trial H.N. testified Fontenot did not touch her 
 
23 
 
breasts but in the CPC video states that he did place his hand under her 
sports bra and touched her “private spot up here.”  Additionally, H.N. 
states in the CPC video Fontenot touched his penis when he touched her 
but at trial testified he used one hand when he touched her and that she 
did not know what he did with his other hand.   
These inconsistencies do not detract from the fact that the CPC video 
is, on the whole, consistent with H.N.’s trial testimony.  Fontenot did not 
object to the admission of portions of the video; his objection was all or 
nothing. 
In any event, we presume the admission of hearsay that does not 
fall within an exception is prejudicial to the nonoffering party unless 
otherwise established.  State v. Dullard, 668 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Iowa 2003).  
Although prior consistent statements are admissible for the truth of the 
matter asserted, in this case, the district court included a jury instruction 
that informed the jury that as to statements not made under oath, “you 
may only use the statement as a basis for disregarding all or any part of 
the witness’s testimony.”  We presume jurors follow instructions.  State v. 
Sanford, 814 N.W.2d 611, 620 (Iowa 2012). 
The State contends it was to Fontenot’s benefit that none of the 
statements in the CPC video came in as substantive evidence and he was 
not prejudiced by the few inconsistent statements it contained.  We agree.  
Rather than bolster H.N.’s credibility to the jurors, these inconsistent 
statements more likely casted doubt on her credibility in the CPC video.  
Contrary to the CPC interview, H.N. testified at trial that Fontenot had not 
touched himself in her presence or touched her breasts.1 
                                      
 
1Fontenot also benefited from the district court’s decision to have the redacted 
deposition read aloud to the jury.  Thus, the jury had everything before it: H.N.’s trial 
testimony, where she was vigorously cross-examined; H.N.’s original video interview; and 
H.N.’s deposition. 
 
24 
 
Furthermore, because these statements were video recorded, the 
jury was better able to assess H.N.’s credibility as to the statements.  The 
CPC interviewer asked open-ended, nonleading questions the vast majority 
of the interview.  However, at trial, the jury could see for themselves that 
H.N.’s answers resulting in these two particular inconsistent statements 
were in response to more leading and less open-ended questions.  For 
example, the interviewer asked H.N. several times what Fontenot’s other 
hand was doing when he touched her with his one hand, and H.N. said it 
was not doing anything or she was unsure.  It was only after the 
interviewer asked H.N. if Fontenot’s other hand touched any other part of 
her body that H.N. stated Fontenot would also touch her under her sports 
bra.  Later in the conversation, the interviewer asked H.N. if Fontenot “ever 
touched his penis in front of you,” and H.N. responded in the negative.  
The interviewer again asked, “Did you ever accidentally see him touch his 
penis?”  This time H.N. replied, “He’s tried to . . . . so when he touches me 
he touches his penis.”  It seems more likely the admission of these 
statements were more injurious to the State than to Fontenot because of 
the context they arose from in the video and because H.N. testified at trial 
there was “no doubt” in her mind Fontenot never touched her breasts and 
that she did not know if he did anything with his other hand when he 
touched her. 
Admittedly, the statements in the CPC video including additional 
details not discussed in H.N.’s trial testimony have no probative value as 
prior consistent statements.  For example, defense counsel made a motion 
for mistrial after the video was played because H.N. told the CPC 
interviewer in the video that Fontenot had photos of girls in small bikinis 
on his cell phone.  The district court stated that in the grand scheme it 
was not prejudicial to Fontenot and noted defense counsel had months to 
 
25 
 
review the CPC video and file a motion in limine to redact certain portions.  
See Gardner, 490 N.W.2d at 842 (“Defendant did not request the court to 
preview the tape prior to admission . . . .  This could have been cured by a 
request to limit play-back to the one relevant question.  Defendant did not 
request the trial court to limit the presentation in this manner; 
consequently, he has not preserved a claim of error.”), overruled on other 
grounds by Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160.  Defense counsel requested a 
redaction for the deposition, yet decided against requesting any redactions 
for the video.2  Furthermore, defense counsel discussed at length on cross-
examination one of the few additional incidents of abuse H.N. only 
discussed in the CPC video. 
A reversal is required for improper admission of evidence if the 
admission affected a substantial right of a party.  State v. Neiderbach, 837 
N.W.2d 180, 205 (Iowa 2013).  As discussed above, the prejudicial effects 
of the additional details in the CPC video were not considered by the jury 
as substantive evidence of Fontenot’s guilt.  Furthermore, we do not think 
the particular additional detail objected to at trial prejudiced Fontenot—
H.N. clearly stated in the video Fontenot never asked her for inappropriate 
photos nor sent her any, and she reiterated that in her testimony.  We 
conclude the jury’s viewing of additional or inconsistent details in the video 
was harmless in this case. 
The dissent cites J.D.W. v. State, 176 So. 3d 863 (Ala. Crim. App. 
2014), an Alabama Court of Appeals child sexual abuse case, to argue the 
                                      
 
2Defense counsel stated to the district court after his cross-examination,  
I asked her about her CPC tape.  That doesn’t make the entire thing 
admissible.  If anything, I should be able to pick the parts that I want to 
play to show the inconsistencies that would be admissible under prior 
inconsistent statements, but I’m not seeking to do that because we all 
know what happens here if we let the jury have the CPC tape, that it 
enforces and bolsters her testimony and the claims that she makes. 
 
26 
 
CPC video should not have been admitted because it contains additional 
details of abuse.  J.D.W. is distinguishable from this case.  In J.D.W., the 
State called a forensic interviewer to testify to incidents the child “was not 
able to recall on the stand but apparently had discussed in her forensic 
interview.”  Id. at 869.  The child had testified to four incidents of abuse.  
Id. at 865.  The forensic interviewer then testified to other incidents of 
abuse.  Id. at 867.  This is a completely different factual scenario than the 
present case.   
Here, the CPC video was admitted because defense counsel implied 
H.N. had fabricated her testimony and impeached her testimony with 
inconsistent statements in her deposition.  The vast majority of H.N.’s trial 
statements have a companion consistent statement in the video, unlike in 
J.D.W. where the forensic interviewer testified about incidents of sexual 
abuse that were wholly absent from the victim’s testimony.  Furthermore, 
Alabama’s rules lend more support to the majority’s position that the video 
should be admitted.  Alabama allows introduction of evidence in sexual 
offense cases “for the purpose of corroborating the victim’s testimony on 
direct examination as to the details of the crime, as to which the victim 
has been subjected to cross-examination calculated to reflect upon her 
credibility as a witness.”  Lee v. State, 565 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Ala. 1989) 
(quoting Cady v. State, 455 So. 2d 101, 105 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)) 
(allowing witnesses to testify to conversations with child after defense 
counsel’s cross-examination had the “apparent purpose of reflecting upon 
the child’s credibility as a witness”). 
Defense counsel opened the door for admission of the CPC video 
during his cross-examination of H.N. when he repeatedly implied she was 
fabricating.  H.N.’s first statement in her CPC interview occurred before 
counsel took her second statement during a deposition and before trial 
 
27 
 
where defense counsel first alleged H.N. changed or fabricated her 
testimony at trial or in her deposition.  Thus, the video occurred before 
defense counsel alleged H.N. was changing or fabricating her story and is 
admissible as a prior consistent statement.  Therefore, we need not 
address whether the video would have been admissible on any other 
ground. 
IV.  Conclusion. 
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm Fontenot’s conviction. 
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT 
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 
Waterman, Mansfield, and McDermott, JJ., join this opinion.  
McDonald, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Appel and Oxley, JJ., 
join. 
 
 
 
28 
 
 
#19–0295, State v. Fontenot 
McDONALD, Justice (dissenting). 
Defense counsel impeached H.N.’s trial testimony with inconsistent 
statements from her forensic interview.  H.N. testified at trial that the first 
time Fontenot did anything bad to her was on a camping trip, but defense 
counsel impeached her with her forensic interview during which H.N. did 
not discuss any camping trip.  H.N. also testified at trial that Fontenot did 
not touch her breasts, but defense counsel impeached her with her 
forensic interview during which H.N. reported Fontenot touched her 
breasts.  The majority concludes the forensic interview used as a prior 
inconsistent statement to impeach H.N. was actually a prior consistent 
statement admissible to rebut a charge of recent fabrication.  This makes 
no sense.  I dissent. 
I. 
To assess whether there was prejudicial evidentiary error, it is first 
necessary to put this case into context.  This jury did not view the State’s 
case as strong.  The jury found Fontenot guilty on only two of the six 
counts charged.  Clearly, the jury found much of H.N.’s trial testimony not 
credible, which makes the evidentiary issue in this case of critical 
importance. 
Fontenot was charged with two counts of indecent contact with a 
child, with E.M.  To prove these charges, the State was required to prove 
the defendant “with or without E.M.’s consent touched the clothing 
covering the immediate area of the inner thigh, groin, buttock, or anus of 
E.M.” and the defendant “did so with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy 
the sexual desires of the [d]efendant or E.M.”  Both E.M. and H.N. testified 
at trial that the defendant touched E.M. over her clothing in her private 
 
29 
 
spot, but the jury rejected their testimony and acquitted Fontenot of the 
charges. 
Fontenot was charged with two counts of sexual abuse in the second 
degree against H.N.  The jury was instructed the State was required to 
prove the defendant committed a sex act with H.N. and she was under the 
age of twelve years.  “Sex act” was defined to include any sexual contact 
“[b]etween the finger or hand of one person and the genitals or anus of 
another person.”  H.N. testified the defendant put his hand underneath 
her underwear and touched her private spot.  She testified he digitally 
penetrated her.  When the prosecutor asked H.N. how many times the 
defendant touched her in her “private area” underneath her clothing, H.N. 
testified, “More than I can count.”  Despite H.N.’s explicit testimony 
regarding these charges, the jury was not convinced and deadlocked on 
the two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree.  The district court 
ultimately dismissed the charges on the State’s motion.   
Fontenot was also charged with two counts of indecent contact with 
a child, H.N.  To prove these charges, the State was required to prove the 
defendant “with or without H.N.’s consent touched the clothing covering 
the immediate area of the inner thigh, groin, buttock, or anus of H.N.” and 
the defendant “did so with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual 
desires of the [d]efendant or H.N.”  In her forensic interview, H.N. reported 
Fontenot touched her above her clothing in her private areas.  She also 
testified at trial that Fontenot touched her above her shorts or underwear 
more times than she could count.  The jury found Fontenot guilty of these 
two charges.   
Was the jury’s finding of guilt based on the conduct H.N. reported 
in the forensic interview or based on H.N.’s trial testimony?  That is 
unknown.  But the answer to that question is not necessary to resolve this 
 
30 
 
case.  When the district court erroneously admits hearsay statements into 
evidence, “[w]e presume prejudice—that is, a substantial right of the 
defendant is affected—and reverse unless the record affirmatively 
establishes otherwise.”  State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6, 19 (Iowa 2006) 
(emphasis removed) (quoting State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19, 30 (Iowa 
2004)).  As discussed below, the district court’s decision to admit the 
entirety of the forensic interview into evidence was erroneous, and the 
record does not affirmatively establish the error was not prejudicial. 
II. 
The general rule is that an out-of-court statement consistent with 
the declarant’s in-court testimony is not admissible as substantive 
evidence or to enhance the declarant’s credibility.  This is because the 
“weak probative value of consistent statements evidence is deemed 
insufficient to overcome its prejudicial impact in terms of Rule 5.403 
considerations.”  7 Laurie Kratky Doré, Iowa Practice Series: Evidence 
§ 5.801:7, at 902 (2020–2021 ed. 2020) [hereinafter Doré].  As this record 
demonstrates, “the circumstances surrounding the prior declaration may 
lead to confusion of issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time 
or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”  Id. n.2.  Further, the 
focus of a criminal jury trial should be witness testimony, delivered under 
oath, in front of the jury, in the defendant’s presence, subject to the 
defendant’s cross examination, and not litigation by “prior prepared 
statements.”  Id. § 5.801:7, at 902 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)); see 
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 43, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1359 (2004) 
(“The common-law tradition is one of live testimony in court subject to 
adversarial testing . . . .”).  Thus, a strong preference for live testimony 
undergirds the rules of evidence, and exceptions thereto should be 
administered with great caution.   
 
31 
 
Against this traditional background, Iowa Rule of Evidence 
5.801(d)(1)(B) provides a narrow exception to the hearsay rule that permits 
admission 
of 
hearsay 
evidence 
in 
limited 
and 
highly 
focused 
circumstances.3  Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.801(d)(1)(B) provides that a prior 
statement is not hearsay and is admissible as substantive evidence if: 
[t]he declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination 
about a prior statement, and the statement: . . . [i]s consistent 
with the declarant’s testimony and is offered to rebut an 
express or implied charge that the declarant recently 
fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or 
motive in so testifying . . . .   
As the text of the rule suggests, the rule is not a crude weapon to 
shotgun-blast bolstering hearsay into the record when a defense lawyer 
exploits inconsistencies through effective cross-examination.  Instead, it is 
a precision rifle to rebut a specific claim that the declarant recently 
fabricated specific testimony or acted from a recent improper influence or 
motive in testifying.  The majority disregards the narrow nature of the 
exception and instead takes a shotgun-blast approach to the rule, holding 
that the entirety of the CPC interview was admissible as a prior consistent 
statement under rule 5.801(d)(1)(B).  I disagree with this indiscriminate 
approach. 
                                      
 
3The caselaw repeatedly emphasizes the narrowness of the prior-consistent-
statement exception to the hearsay rule.  See, e.g., Kitchings v. State, 291 So. 3d 181, 
196 (Fla. 2020) (“[U]se of a prior consistent statement is narrowly circumscribed . . . .”); 
People v. Wiggins, 40 N.E.3d 1197, 1204 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (recognizing “the narrow 
exception for prior statements used to rebut an inference that the witness recently 
fabricated the testimony”); Commonwealth v. Cruz, 759 N.E.2d 723, 731 (Mass. App. Ct. 
2001) (stating that “[p]rior consistent statements” are only “allowable under [a] narrow 
hearsay exception”); People v. Harris, 662 N.Y.S.2d 965, 966 (App. Div. 1997) (“There is a 
narrow exception, which permits proof of prior consistent statements to rebut a claim of 
recent fabrication.”; (citations omitted)) State v. Midgett, 680 N.W.2d 288, 293 (S.D. 2004) 
(“This hearsay exception is . . . rather narrow.”); Faison v. Hudson, 417 S.E.2d 305, 309 
(Va. 1992) (recognizing “a few narrowly circumscribed exceptions” to the general rule 
excluding prior consistent statements).   
 
32 
 
A. 
First, it is questionable whether defense counsel’s cross-
examination constituted a charge of improper motive or recent fabrication.  
Defense counsel’s examination of H.N. was rigorous, and he impeached 
her credibility with numerous prior inconsistent statements.  This, in and 
of itself, does not constitute a charge of motive to lie or recent fabrication.  
See Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1, 24 (Fla. 2003) (per curiam) (holding that 
questioning deputy regarding omissions in report was not a charge of 
recent fabrication and stating the admission of prior statements “served to 
improperly bolster [the deputy’s] credibility regarding his trial testimony” 
and was error); People v. McWhite, 927 N.E.2d 152, 157 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010) 
(“However, the mere introduction of contradictory evidence, without more, 
does not constitute an implied charge of fabrication or motive to lie.”); 
Commonwealth v. Bruce, 811 N.E.2d 1003, 1009 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) 
(“Contrary to the belief of the judge below, the impeachment of a witness 
by prior inconsistent statements or omissions does not, standing alone, 
entitle the adverse party to introduce other prior statements made by the 
witness that are consistent with his trial testimony.”); Jones v. State, 439 
P.3d 753, 761 (Wyo. 2019) (“A defense to crimes such as those at issue 
here will necessarily entail a defense theory that what the victim said 
happened did not happen.  That alone does not open the door for 
admission of prior consistent statements.”); Doré, Iowa Practice Series: 
Evidence § 5.801:7, at 905 (“[T]he rule does not permit prior consistent 
statements merely to rebut a charge that the witness is not credible 
because the witness has made inconsistent statements.”). 
It has been repeatedly held that mere presentation at trial of 
conflicting testimony or statements made by a witness does not imply 
fabrication.  See Moore v. Anchor Org. for Health Maint., 672 N.E.2d 826, 
 
33 
 
834 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (“We know of no case which stands for the 
proposition that the mere introduction of contradictory evidence 
constitutes, without more, an implied charge of fabrication.  In fact, the 
contrary is true.”); State v. Jones, 841 So. 2d 965, 975–76 (La. Ct. App. 
2003) (“The mere fact of a prior inconsistent statement is insufficient . . . 
there must have been an express or implied suggestion that the witness 
changed his story because of some purported motive to falsify.” 
(quoting George W. Pugh et al., Handbook on Louisiana Evidence Law 485–
86 (2000))).  As noted by one appellate court, “just because evidence is 
introduced that contradicts a witness’ in-court testimony or because a 
witness [has been] impeached, it does not necessarily follow that there has 
been a charge of recent fabrication.”  People v. Miller, 706 N.E.2d 947, 952 
(Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (citations omitted).  Similarly, the Supreme Court of 
Virginia has declared: “[T]o allow the admission of a prior consistent 
statement after impeachment of just ‘any sort’ would create an 
unreasonably ‘loose rule.’ ” Faison, 417 S.E.2d at 310.   
B. 
Second, the State did not identify the specific questions posed by 
defense counsel that charged H.N. with improper motive or recent 
fabrication, and the district court did not make a finding of improper 
motive or recent fabrication.  It was improper to allow the evidence without 
the proponent specifically identifying the charge and the district court 
making a finding regarding the same.  See Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 
150, 166, 115 S. Ct. 696, 705 (1995) (“[T]he thing to be rebutted must be 
identified . . . .”); United States v. Lozada-Rivera, 177 F.3d 98, 104 (1st Cir. 
1999) (“[T]he proponent of evidence must point to specific questions during 
his adversary’s examination that suggest recent fabrication or bias.  Merely 
appealing to credibility as a live issue will not do the trick.”); Doré, Iowa 
 
34 
 
Practice Series: Evidence § 5.801:7, at 904 (stating the district court must 
make a preliminary finding “that a charge of recent fabrication or improper 
influence or motive has been leveled against the testifying witness”).  Prior 
consistent statements should not be admitted in the absence of a 
preliminary finding of improper motive or recent fabrication. 
These preliminary requirements are necessary to effectively 
administer the rule within the intended scope.  The dangers of failing to 
comply with these preliminary requirements are demonstrated in the 
majority opinion.  The majority is caught in a dilemma.  The majority 
concludes in division III, section A that the charge of recent fabrication or 
improper motive is not that H.N. “had fabricated the entire story.”  If the 
majority concluded otherwise, then the forensic interview would not have 
been made before the alleged motive to fabricate or improper influence 
arose and would be inadmissible under the rule.  See State v. Johnson, 
539 N.W.2d 160, 164 (Iowa 1995) (“[A] witness’s prior consistent statement 
is admissible as nonhearsay to rebut a charge of recent improper motive 
. . . only if the statement was made before the alleged improper motive to 
fabricate arose.”); see also Tome, 513 U.S. at 158, 115 S. Ct. at 701 (“[T]he 
consistent statements must have been made before the alleged influence, 
or motive to fabricate, arose.”); Miller, 706 N.E.2d at 952 (allowing 
exception provided “that the prior consistent statement was made before 
the motive to fabricate arose”); Harris, 662 N.Y.S.2d at 966–67 (“[F]or that 
exception to apply, the prior consistent statement must have predated the 
motive to falsify.” (citations omitted)); Midgett, 680 N.W.2d at 294 
(“Because the statements were made after the alleged motive to fabricate 
arose, they were not probative to corroborate [the] trial testimony.”).  The 
majority thus concludes defense counsel “implied H.N. was changing or 
fabricating her story on the stand.”  But the majority never specifically 
 
35 
 
identifies how or in what respect.  This is because the forensic interview 
does not actually rebut the charge of recent fabrication or improper motive 
with respect to any of the specifically challenged parts of H.N.’s testimony.  
The majority does not deny this.  Instead, the majority concludes the 
evidence was admissible because the majority of H.N.’s testimony was 
consistent with her forensic interview.  In the majority’s view, because the 
forensic interview contains allegations of sex abuse and H.N. testified to 
sex abuse, the charge of recent fabrication or improper motive is rebutted.  
This would only be true (if at all) if the charge of recent fabrication or 
improper motive was that H.N. had fabricated the entire story.  But the 
majority rejects that as a basis for admission of the forensic interview.  
In short, to find the forensic interview occurred prior to the charge 
of recent fabrication, the majority finds defense counsel charged only that 
H.N. changed specific parts of her story, but to find the forensic interview 
was consistent, the majority looks to the interview and testimony as a 
whole because the forensic interview admittedly does not actually rebut 
the charge of recent fabrication or improper motive with respect to the 
testimony actually challenged.   
The requirements that the proponent identify the charge and that 
the court make specific findings regarding the same are meant to prohibit 
jumping between these levels of generality to game the rule.  See Tome, 
513 U.S. at 157–58, 115 S. Ct. at 701 (“Prior consistent statements may 
not be admitted to counter all forms of impeachment or to bolster the 
witness merely because she has been discredited.  . . .  The Rule speaks of 
a party rebutting an alleged motive, not bolstering the veracity of the story 
told.”).  There must be a link “between the prior consistent statement,” the 
charge of improper motive or recent fabrication, and the “particular type 
of impeachment that has occurred.”  United States v. Butler, ARMY 
 
36 
 
20180385, 2020 WL 2844500, at *4 (A. Ct. Crim. App. May 29, 2020) 
(quoting United States v. Finch, 79 M.J. 389, 396 (C.A.A.F. 2020)).  The 
prior consistent statement to be introduced must be “an appropriate, 
narrowly tailored, and logically relevant response to a specific attack on 
the witness’s credibility.”  State v. White, 977 A.2d 501, 505 (N.H. 2009) 
(quoting State v. Fischer, 725 A.2d 1, 4 (N.H. 1999)).  Consistency at a high 
and superficial level of generality is insufficient to warrant admission of an 
out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted to rebut 
a specific charge of recent fabrication or improper motive. 
C. 
Third, even assuming these preconditions to admissibility had been 
met, the entirety of the CPC interview was not relevant to the grounds for 
impeachment and should not have been admitted.   
Consider, for example, H.N.’s testimony regarding the first incident 
of alleged sexual abuse.  The prosecutor asked H.N. when the first time 
“something bad” happened.  H.N. testified the first time was “in Minnesota 
when we were camping.”  She testified “we were having like a bonfire, and 
we went into the camper, and he like pulled out the couch.  And I was 
laying in the bed, and he like started rubbing my leg.”  On cross-
examination, defense counsel then impeached H.N. by omission.  He asked 
H.N. why she had not “mention[ed] any camping trip in Minnesota” during 
her CPC interview, and she replied, “I thought I did.”  Defense counsel then 
asked her why she had not mentioned the camping trip during her 
deposition, and she replied, “I thought I did.”  But she did not.  H.N. told 
the CPC interviewer the first time anything bad happened was in her home 
when she was sitting on her bed.  H.N. never mentioned any camping trip 
in Minnesota during the CPC interview.   
 
37 
 
The fact that H.N. never mentioned the camping trip in Minnesota 
means the CPC interview was not relevant to rebut the charge of improper 
motive or recent fabrication as to this point.  As one court correctly 
explained: 
On the other hand, rehabilitating the credibility of the 
declarant may require something more precisely related to 
explaining or rebutting the specific manner of the attack on 
the witness’ credibility.  For example, if the declarant’s 
credibility 
is 
attacked 
on 
another 
ground 
such 
as 
impeachment by omission because she testified to new 
information not previously mentioned in other statements, 
admitting a prior statement that is devoid of the fact now at 
issue, is not actually consistent with the testimony attacked 
and does little to rehabilitate the declarant’s credibility based 
on the specific type of attack. 
United States v. Norwood, 79 M.J. 644, 655 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2019), 
aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 79 M.J. 644 (C.A.A.F. 2021) (citations omitted).  
As another court explained, “In each instance where admission is sought, 
the trial court must begin by determining whether the prior statement is 
actually relevant ‘to rebut an express or implied charge . . . of recent 
fabrication or improper influence or motive . . . .’ ”  Nitz v. State, 720 P.2d 
55, 68 (Alaska Ct. App. 1986) (omissions in original) (quoting Alaska Rule 
of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B)).  The rule “seems an inappropriate basis to admit 
proof of statements that are consistent with other parts of testimony that 
have not been attacked.”  4 Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, 
Federal Evidence § 8:38, Westlaw (4th ed. May 2020 Update) [hereinafter 
Mueller & Kirkpatrick]. 
With respect to this ground for impeachment, this case is similar to 
United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir. 2005).  In that case, the 
defendant was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse against a child.  
See id. at 1074.  At trial, the child testified that the last instance of abuse 
 
38 
 
occurred the week prior to the time she told a physician’s assistant about 
the abuse.  See id. at 1075.  The child testified the defendant had 
performed some acts of sexual abuse on her during the day and had 
attempted to force her to have oral sex.  See id. at 1080.  On cross-
examination, defense counsel impeached the child by omission, 
questioning the child on why she had not told the physician’s assistant 
about incidents of sexual abuse occurring during the day and about 
attempted oral sex.  See id.  Over the defendant’s objection, the district 
court allowed the physician’s assistant to testify about her conversation 
with the child as a prior consistent statement.  See id. at 1079.  The court 
of appeals concluded it was error to allow the physician’s assistant to 
testify because she “did not present evidence of a prior consistent 
statement with respect to the matters on which [the child] was impeached.  
The whole point of the impeachment was that [the child] did not describe 
daytime abuse and attempted oral sex to [the physician’s assistant].”  Id. 
at 1080.  The court vacated the convictions.  See id. at 1082.  The same 
result should obtain here. 
In addition, the entire CPC interview should not have been admitted 
because statements contained therein were directly contrary to H.N.’s trial 
testimony.  For example, on direct examination, H.N. testified the 
defendant never touched her breasts.  Defense counsel challenged this 
testimony.  He impeached her with her prior inconsistent statement made 
during the CPC interview.  During the CPC interview, H.N. stated the 
defendant put his hand up her shirt and under her sports bra and touched 
her breasts.  A statement cannot be admitted as a prior consistent 
statement to rebut a charge of recent fabrication where it is directly 
contrary to the challenged testimony.  See J.D.W. v. State, 176 So. 3d 863, 
869 (Ala. Crim. App. 2014) (holding testimony of forensic interviewer was 
 
39 
 
not admissible as prior consistent statement where “testimony regarding 
[the child’s] statements during the forensic interview was inconsistent—
not consistent—with [the child’s] trial testimony”); State v. Gell, 524 S.E.2d 
332, 340 (N.C. 2000) (“However, the State may not introduce as 
corroboration prior statements that actually, directly contradict trial 
testimony.”).   
Finally, the CPC interview contained statements regarding alleged 
abuse that H.N. did not testify to at trial.  Those statements are not prior 
consistent statements and should not have been admitted.  See United 
States v. Campbell, ARMY 20180107, 2020 WL 1150267, at *5 (A. Ct. Crim. 
App. Mar. 6, 2020) (“Only those portions of a witness’s prior statement 
that are consistent with the witness’s courtroom testimony may be deemed 
admissible at trial.” (emphasis omitted) (quoting Finch, 79 M.J. at 391)).  
As one treatise explains, the rule allows admission of prior consistent 
statements to repair a specific form of attack on a testifying witness’s 
credibility; the rule was not intended to allow admission of evidence that 
expands the trial testimony: 
Yet this mechanism of repair was never intended to allow such 
statements to prove points omitted from trial testimony, and 
an important common law tradition holds that such 
statements cannot go beyond what the witness has said in her 
trial testimony . . . .  This tradition is critical to proper 
application of [the federal rule], and it requires judges and 
adverse parties to keep a watchful eye on counsel offering 
such statements under the amended rule. 
4 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 8:38 (emphasis omitted). 
In this respect, this case is similar to J.D.W. v. State.  In that case, 
the State called a forensic interviewer to testify to prior consistent 
statements the child made during a forensic interview to rebut a charge of 
recent fabrication.  See J.D.W., 176 So. 3d at 866.  The court allowed the 
 
40 
 
testimony over the defendant’s objection.  See id. at 867.  The court of 
criminal appeals concluded this was error.  See id. at 869.  The court 
reasoned that the forensic interviewer’s testimony was not consistent with 
the child’s testimony because the forensic interviewer discussed other 
incidents of abuse to which the child did not testify.  See id. at 869 
(“Likewise, on appeal, the State continues to argue that Wilbourn’s 
testimony regarding R.W.’s forensic interview was consistent with R.W.’s 
trial testimony; the State’s argument, however, is belied by its recognition 
that Wilbourn’s testimony included ‘other incidents of abuse’ about which 
R.W. ‘could not recall specific details.’ ”).  Like the testimony in J.D.W., the 
CPC interview contains allegations of abuse outside the scope of H.N.’s 
trial testimony and should not have been admitted as a prior consistent 
statement.  See 4 Mueller & Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence § 8:38 (“What 
seems important is that the exception should not become the means by 
which a party can prove new points not covered in the testimony of the 
speaker.”). 
The upshot is this: for evidence to be admitted as a prior statement 
to rebut a charge of recent fabrication, the prior statement must be 
relevant with respect to the matter or matters on which the witness was 
impeached and must actually be consistent with the challenged testimony.  
If the prior statement does not satisfy these conditions, then the evidence 
is not relevant.  On this basis, I conclude admission of the entire CPC 
interview was erroneous and prejudicial.   
III. 
 
The State contends even if the entire forensic interview was not 
admissible as a prior consistent statement, the district court properly 
admitted the evidence under the residual exception contained in Iowa Rule 
 
41 
 
of Evidence 5.807 or the child hearsay statute codified at Iowa Code 
section 915.38(3) (2018).  I respectfully disagree. 
The residual hearsay exception is “used very rarely, and only in 
exceptional circumstances.”  State v. Veverka, 938 N.W.2d 197, 199 (Iowa 
2020) (quoting State v. Brown, 341 N.W.2d 10, 14 (Iowa 1983) (en banc)).  
Under the rule, the proponent must establish the following: 
 
(1) The statement has equivalent circumstantial 
guarantees of trustworthiness; 
 
(2) It is offered as evidence of a material fact; 
 
(3) It is more probative on the point for which it is 
offered than any other evidence that the proponent can 
obtain through reasonable efforts; and 
 
(4) Admitting it will best serve the purposes of 
these rules and the interests of justice. 
 
b.  Notice.  The statement is admissible only if, before 
the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party 
reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement . . . . 
Iowa R. Evid. 5.807. 
 
In State v. Rojas, we explained the residual hearsay exception 
standard as follows: “The requirements for admissibility under the residual 
exception are five-fold: trustworthiness, materiality, necessity, service of 
the interests of justice, and notice.”  524 N.W.2d 659, 662–63 (Iowa 1994).  
In that case, the issue was whether a videotaped interview of a child’s 
allegations of sexual abuse could be admitted when the child recanted the 
statements at trial.  See id. at 661.  We held the video was admissible 
under rule 803(24) (now rule 5.807), the residual hearsay exception.  See 
id. at 664.  We held that the video was trustworthy, material, necessary, 
and served the truth-seeking function of justice because in it the child 
recounted graphic details in response to nonleading, open-ended 
 
42 
 
questions about the sexual abuse and surrounding circumstances.  See 
id. at 663–64.   
 
In State v. Neitzel, the court of appeals admitted video evidence of a 
child’s prior statements under the residual hearsay exception.  801 N.W.2d 
612, 622–23 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).  There, the one incident of abuse 
occurred three years prior to trial when the child was seven years old and 
the child no longer had memory of what occurred.  See id. at 623 (“The 
admission of the evidence was necessary because T.K. was of a young age 
when the abuse occurred and unable to testify to the abuse at trial years 
later . . . .”). 
 
Unlike Rojas and Neitzel, there is no showing of necessity here.  For 
necessity, the State must show the evidence is “more probative . . . than 
any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable 
efforts.”  Iowa R. Evid. 5.807(a)(3).  Here, H.N., was a teenager at the time 
of trial.  Cf. Neitzel, 801 N.W.2d at 623 (noting there was necessity because 
the child was young).  H.N. was able to testify regarding the specific 
allegations of abuse in great detail.  Cf. id. (noting the child was unable to 
testify).  Unlike the child in Rojas, H.N. did not recant her allegations of 
sexual abuse.  Cf. Rojas, 524 N.W.2d at 661; State v. Kone, 562 N.W.2d 
637, 638 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (finding necessity where witness “later 
recanted her statements made in the interview, [and] the admission of the 
tape was the only means by which the State could introduce the 
information it had received from” the witness).  Where the witness can 
testify to the allegations of abuse there is “no basis for concluding that this 
evidence was necessary for the State’s case.”  State v. Metz, 636 N.W.2d 
94, 100 (Iowa 2001).   
 
The State also contends the video is admissible under Iowa Code 
section 915.38(3), which allows admission of recorded statements of child 
 
43 
 
sex abuse victims into evidence if the statements “substantially comport” 
with the requirements of the residual hearsay exception.   
The court may upon motion of a party admit into evidence the 
recorded statements of a child, as defined in section 702.5, 
describing sexual contact performed with or on the child, not 
otherwise admissible in evidence by statute or court rule if the 
court determines that the recorded statements substantially 
comport with the requirements for admission under rule of 
evidence 5.803(24) or 5.804(b)(5). 
Iowa Code § 915.38(3).  This court has not determined what “substantially 
comport” means.  I would hold a recorded statement does not substantially 
comport with the requirements for admission under the residual exception 
where there is no showing of necessity, as is the case here.  For this reason, 
I would conclude the forensic interview was not admissible under section 
915.38(3). 
IV. 
 
As the jury verdict reflects, this was a close case.  The jury acquitted 
the defendant of two charges against E.M. to which E.M. and H.N. both 
testified.  The jury could not conclude the State proved its case with 
respect to the most serious charges of sex abuse against H.N. despite her 
testimony regarding more instances of sex abuse than she could count.  
The jury did convict Fontenot of the less serious charges of indecent 
contact with a child involving H.N., but the basis for that verdict is 
unknown.  “In a case of nonconstitutional error, ‘we presume prejudice—
that is, a substantial right of the defendant is affected—and reverse unless 
the record affirmatively establishes otherwise.’ ”  State v. Buelow, 951 
N.W.2d 879, 890 (Iowa 2020) (quoting Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d at 30).  I 
conclude there was evidentiary error here, and the record does not 
affirmatively establish the lack of prejudice.  I would vacate the defendant’s 
convictions and remand this matter for new trial. 
 
Appel and Oxley, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.