stating the first requirement is normally satisfied “when the record reveals that the examining doctor emphasized to the alleged victim the *622 importance of truthful responses in providing treatment and the record further indicates that the child’s motive in making the statements was consistent with a normal patient/doctor dialogue”
How later courts described this case
- stating the first requirement is normally satisfied “when the record reveals that the examining doctor emphasized to the alleged victim the *622 importance of truthful responses in providing treatment and the record further indicates that the child’s motive in making the statements was consistent with a normal patient/doctor dialogue”
- concluding an expert’s testimony that “there are probably no more than two or three children per thousand who come forth with such a serious [sexual abuse] allegation who are found later to be dishonest” was improper
- finding testimony improper that no more than two or three children per thousand who come forth with serious allegation are later found to be dishonest
- finding reversible error when “the State places a witness on the stand who it expects to give unfavorable testimony solely for the purpose of introducing otherwise inadmissible evidence”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDREASEN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The majority opinion is primarily based upon its finding that the State impeached its own witness, K.A., in violation of our holding in State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219 (Iowa 1990). Tracy did not raise this issue at trial (Tracy was convicted in December 1989; Turecek was decided in May 1990). Nor did Tracy raise this issue in his appellate briefs. An issue is waived or abandoned if it is not included in appellant’s brief. Hubby v. State, 331 N.W.2d 690, 694 (Iowa 1983). Our review of a law action is confined to errors assigned. Id. K.A.’s prior inconsistent statements, used to impeach, do not come within the definition of hearsay. State v. Hill, 243 N.W.2d 567, 570 (Iowa 1976).
Tracy raised three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He urged trial counsel failed to object to certain testimony of (1) Dr. Comly, (2) Dr. Opdebeeck and failed to (3) request instruction as to the use of unsworn prior inconsistent statements. These issues were addressed by the trial court upon remand.
I agree with the majority opinion that counsel did not err in failing to object to the testimony of Dr. Opdebeeck or to the expert testimony of Dr. Comly relating to sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. In consideration of the remaining preserved issues I, like the trial court and the court of appeals, find Tracy has failed to prove that prejudice resulted. I would affirm the district court judgment and the decision of the court of appeals.
HARRIS and LARSON, JJ., join this dissent.