Opinion ID: 4249288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: W. pointed to both sides of her chest.

Text: Dr. Harre asked if the brother’s friend touched her anywhere else. A.W. stated, “Touched back bottom,” while pointing to her rear. Dr. Harre asked again if he touched anywhere else. A.W. stated, “Touched 1At one point, law enforcement sent in questions requesting more detail in one subject area, and those questions were put to A.W. by Mattox and answered. 5 front bottom.” Dr. Harre asked A.W. what he touched her body with, and A.W. said “Wawa,” apparently a reference to a dinosaur toy she used to have. Dr. Harre asked if the touching hurt or felt good or tickled or something else. A.W. said, “Hurt.” Dr. Harre asked A.W. if anybody else had ever touched her in a way that made her uncomfortable or hurt or something else. A.W. said, “No one else.” After Dr. Harre finished asking these questions, she conducted a full medical exam of A.W., with her father now present at A.W.’s request. Dr. Harre found nothing abnormal in the physical exam. When asked during the medical exam to indicate where she had been touched, A.W. pointed to her front bottom area and her anal area. According to Dr. Harre, it was “moderately” difficult to understand A.W. throughout the interview and exam. Dr. Harre had not received any information concerning Mattox’s interview before she saw A.W. The State filed a delinquency petition and the case proceeded to hearing. A.W.’s mother testified that A.W. would be traumatized by testifying and might not even be able to speak. A psychologist, Catherine Jackson, also testified that the trauma to a child of this age would outweigh any benefit from the testimony. The State did not call A.W. to testify. However, other witnesses for the State included I.W., E.W., M.M., Mattox, and Dr. Harre. J.C. testified on his own behalf and denied assaulting A.W. J.C. objected to testimony from Mattox and Dr. Harre describing A.W.’s statements on the basis of hearsay and the Confrontation Clause. 2 2J.C.’scounsel did not specify whether he was referring to the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution or that of the Iowa Constitution. 6 J.C. also objected to the admission of their written reports and the DVD of Mattox’s interview with J.C. The juvenile court sustained the objections to Mattox’s written report and the DVD. The court admitted Dr. Harre’s written report. The court also permitted both Dr. Harre and Mattox to testify regarding their interviews of A.W. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that J.C. committed assault with intent to commit sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.11 (2013) and adjudicated J.C. a delinquent child as defined by section 232.2(12). The court noted that J.C.’s testimony “is inconsistent with A.W.[’s] statements to Dr. Harre, and eyewitness accounts by I.W., E.W., M.M., and K.W. who saw A.W. and [J.C.] together. The eyewitness accounts alone are quite persuasive in this case and appear credible due to the differences which are explained by the order they entered the room.” J.C. appealed. He argued that the court erred in admitting certain testimony due to insufficient notice of the witness. He also urged that the court should have excluded any evidence of A.W.’s statements to Dr. Harre and Mattox as violating the Confrontation Clause. Lastly, he argued that evidence of A.W.’s out-of-court statements to Dr. Harre and Mattox should not have been admitted because A.W. was incompetent to testify. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals affirmed, with one judge on the panel dissenting. J.C. filed an application for further review, which we granted.