STATE OF IOWA, vs. JAMES EUGENE FAY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from ...
嚜澠N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 1-293 / 10-0404
Filed June 29, 2011
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMES EUGENE FAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Palo Alto County, Don E. Courtney,
Judge.
James Fay appeals from his convictions, sentence, and judgment for two
counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and two counts of incest.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, and Peter C. Hart, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Doyle and Danilson, JJ. Tabor, J., takes
no part.
2
DOYLE, J.
James Fay appeals from his convictions, sentence, and judgment for two
counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and two counts of incest. He
contends the district court erred in denying his request for an expert witness to
evaluate his mental state during an interview in which he gave statements
against his interest and in denying his motion to suppress those statements as
involuntary.
Additionally, he asserts his trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance in several respects. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
James Fay (Fay) is the father and Carissa Fay is the mother of C.F., born
in September 2001, and R.F., born in December 2002. On April 14, 2008, Fay
was charged with two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree 1 and two
counts of incest.2 Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could
have found the following facts:
In April 2007, C.F. and R.F. began seeing a therapist after R.F., then four
years old, was observed acting out sexually. The therapist found R.F. to be
highly sexualized, noting R.F. 求continually had an erection. He inappropriately
touched . . . me and his mother, and everything he touched was sexualized.′ In
R.F.&s first session with the therapist, R.F. 求took the father doll and the boy doll
and had them having intercourse.′ Additionally, C.F. disclosed to the therapist
1
求A person commits sexual abuse in the second degree when the person
commits sexual abuse under any of the following circumstances: . . . The other person is
under the age of twelve.′ Iowa Code ∫ 709.3(2) (2009).
2
求A person . . . who performs a sex act with another whom the person knows to
be related to the person . . . as an ancestor, descendant, . . . commits incest.′ Id.
∫ 726.2.
3
求that her father was touching her.′
In June 2007, the children&s therapist
conveyed the children&s reports to the Iowa Department of Human Services
(DHS).
On July 6, 2007, a medical examination, including a colposcopy exam,
was performed on the children at the Mercy Child Advocacy Center. C.F. told the
examiner that she had been touched by her half brothers. When asked if anyone
else had touched her, she initially stated no, and then paused and told the
examiner 求sometimes daddy.′ C.F. told the examiner that Fay used gloves and
touched her private spots.
The colposcopy exams showed no evidence of
physical abuse.
On July 23, 2007, DHS&s child protective worker Kelly McKeever and Palo
Alto Deputy County Sheriff Todd Suhr interviewed Fay at the DHS office in
Emmetsburg, Iowa. Deputy Suhr read to Fay a written form entitled 求Statement
of Miranda Rights,′ and advised, among other things, that at 求any time, [Fay], you
can say I don&t want to talk to you no more.′ Deputy Suhr and Fay both signed
the form.
The interview lasted ninety minutes.
Deputy Suhr and McKeever
specifically questioned Fay concerning C.F.&s statements to her therapist that
Fay had touched her vagina with his fingers, he had digitally penetrated her
vagina, and he had touched her with his penis. Fay denied, approximately fiftytwo times, purposefully touching C.F. in a sexual manner. He also denied having
ever changed C.F. and R.F.&s diapers and bathing them.
However, Fay
ultimately admitted that he had accidentally touched C.F.&s vagina with his fingers
once when he picked her up and she was not wearing panties. He also stated
4
that once, as he was toweling off after a shower, C.F. came into the bathroom
and walked into his penis. He also stated that C.F. might have had accidental
contact with his penis when she crawled into Fay and Carissa&s bed at night.
Fay began attending psychosexual therapy with Susan Rohden, a
licensed independent social worker for Catholic Social Services, in December
2007. In April 2008, Fay acknowledged to Rohden he had touched C.F.&s vaginal
area eight different times and he had once digitally penetrated her vagina, but he
maintained that those contacts were accidental. However, Fay also stated 求that
he was sexually interested when he touched his daughter&s vagina and digitally
penetrated her on one occasion.′ Fay also told Rohden he had massaged R.F.&s
private parts on two occasions based upon a doctor&s recommendation regarding
a urinary problem R.F. was having. Fay stated to Rohden that his contact with
R.F. was not sexual, but he was curious to see that his son&s penis became erect
and did acknowledge being sexually interested.
Rohden, with Fay present, then contacted DHS caseworker Beth
Borchardt via telephone. Rohden indicated to Borchardt 求that she was in session
with [Fay], and that he had just acknowledged touching the children.′
Fay
repeated to Borchardt what he had stated to Rohden〞that he had been touching
both his children&s private parts. He admitted he had touched C.F.&s vagina eight
times over the prior three to four months and he had once digitally penetrated
her, but again asserted the contacts were accidental. He also stated he had
touched C.F. in a sexual manner on her private parts, specifically her vagina. He
also stated he touched R.F. in a sexual manner and he was sexually interested
when he touched R.F.
5
On April 14, 2008, a trial information was filed charging Fay with two
counts of third-degree sexual abuse and two counts of incest occurring between
March 1 and July 1, 2007. In January 2009, Fay filed a motion to suppress the
statement he gave to Deputy Suhr and McKeever on July 23, 2007, as
involuntary. The district court overruled Fay&s motion, finding Fay&s statements at
the interview to be voluntary.
In April 2009, Fay filed an application for an expense voucher for an
expert witness to retain an expert for the purpose of evaluating and testifying as
to Fay&s medical and mental state when he gave incriminating statements. The
State resisted the application, and a hearing on the application was held. During
the hearing, the district court seemed to initially approve Fay&s application, stating
求because . . . the〞offenses are serious, I&ll allow you to consult and you&ll have
to prepare a voucher then.′ However, the court&s written ruling following the
hearing denied Fay&s application.
Trial commenced in November 2009. The audio recording of Deputy Suhr
and McKeever&s July 23, 2007 interview of Fay was played for the jury. Two
references to Fay&s past during the interview were fast-forwarded on the
audiocassette so the jury did not hear them. However, a few references by
Deputy Suhr to a past encounter concerning bondage between Fay and Carissa
were not objected to by Fay&s trial counsel and were thus were played along with
the rest of the interview&s audio recording.
The children testified via closed circuit camera. Both children testified
their father had touched their genitals. C.F., eight years old at the time of trial,
testified that her dad took her into his bedroom, laid her down on the bed, and
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- oral arguments in christina fay appeal postponed
- mary fay et al w merrill sc 20477
- trinity county superior court daily calendar confidential department
- case 1 17 cv 03262 document 44 filed 09 11 18 page 1 of 18 cftc
- federal bureau of investigation official notification posted on may 13
- united states court of appeals
- in the united states court of federal claims
- united states of america consumer financial protection bureau
- christina and fay day
- state of iowa vs james eugene fay defendant appellant appeal from