Opinion ID: 2132850
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial of Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars.

Text: Defendant contends that the district court erred in failing to grant her motion for a bill of particulars seeking a statement of the precise acts on which the charge of multiple acts of child endangerment was based. She urges that the information is too imprecise because our decision in State v. Hickman, 576 N.W.2d 364, 368 (Iowa 1998), requires in prosecutions under Iowa Code section 726.6A that the state establish three separate acts with enough precision to enable a [trier of fact] to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of a time and place where each of the three acts occurred. We have clarified the specificity requirement laid down in Hickman in State v. Yeo, 659 N.W.2d 544 (Iowa 2003). In the latter case, we recognize this [ Hickman ] rule does not mean that evidence of the precise time and place of each incident or act is required, but merely means the three or more acts must be separated by time and place. Id. at 550. The trial information under which defendant was prosecuted (substituted second amended trial information) alleged that the State accuses the defendant of child endangerment, a class B felony, in violation of sections 726.6(1)(a) and/or 726.6(1)(e), 726.6A, 703.2 and 703.1 of the Code of Iowa committed as follows: Said defendant Heidi Louise Watkins commencing in February, 1999, and continuing through January 4, 2000, committed three or more acts of child endangerment, at least one of which resulted in serious injury or skeletal injury to Shelby Duis, by: acting in a manner that created a substantial risk to the physical, mental or emotional safety of Shelby Duis; and/or knowingly permitting the physical or sexual abuse of Shelby Duis. A bill of particulars is a request for a more specific statement of the details of the offense charged. State v. Bowers, 656 N.W.2d 349, 353 (Iowa 2002); State v. Conner, 241 N.W.2d 447, 452 (Iowa 1976). Its purpose is to provide additional information that the indictment and minutes of testimony do not give. Conner, 241 N.W.2d at 452. A bill of particulars should be allowed when the charge and minutes do not sufficiently inform the defendant of the criminal acts of which she is accused. Id. Ordinarily, whether or not to grant a motion for bill of particulars rests in the discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Marti, 290 N.W.2d at 576; State v. Gartin, 271 N.W.2d 902, 912 (Iowa 1978). We recognized in Bowers that the specificity with which the State must charge a crime varies depending on the nature of the evidence available to the prosecution. Bowers, 656 N.W.2d at 354. If the State seeks to prove its case by evidence that separate and distinct criminal acts were perpetrated within a specified range of time, but is unable to provide evidence of the precise time and place of those criminal acts, it cannot be expected to provide more detailed information in a bill of particulars. Id. In the present case, the State's proof of the criminal acts was based on the interpretation of the postdeath x-rays by Dr. Duffek indicating separate and distinct skeletal injuries had occurred at different points of time. This evidence was supplemented by Dr. Duffek's opinion that the nature of these fractures could only have resulted from physical abuse. This evidence did not identify with precision when the physical abuse occurred. It only fixes it within a range of time. Based on our conclusions in Bowers, criminal allegations based on this evidence do not need to be more precise than the evidence itself. Other means of discovery were available to defendant for the purpose of narrowing the evidence that Dr. Duffek would provide for purposes of preparing for trial. A bill of particulars was also not required in order to force the State to designate whether defendant or Wendelsdorf was the actual perpetrator of the acts of physical abuse on Shelby. See Marti, 290 N.W.2d at 577 (it was not improper for the state to pursue conflicting alternative theories as to who fired the weapon in murder prosecution and state could not be compelled to provide that information in bill of particulars). We find no error in the denial of the bill of particulars.