State v. Parsons

543 P.3d 465

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.William Norwood PARSONS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 50523

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, September 2023 Term.

Opinion filed: February 8, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Elizabeth Allred argued.

Raul R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Mark Olson argued.

MOELLER, Justice.

Defendant William Parsons was found guilty by ah Ada County jury on three felony counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and one misdemeanor count of disseminating harmful material to a minor. On appeal, he challenges the trial court’s admission of two recorded interviews with the victim, who did not testify. He argues the video evidence was testimonial and admitted in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause because he was afforded no opportunity to confront his accuser. We agree that the videos were submitted to the jury in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, we vacate the conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant "Bill" Parsons was convicted by a jury of three felony counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508, and one misdemeanor count of disseminating harmful material to a minor, I.C. § 18-1515. The offenses occurred between September 2018 and September 2019 while Parsons was living with his then-girlfriend and her daughter, K.B.¹ K.B. was four years old when Parsons moved in. While living together, Parsons would often watch K.B. in the afternoons between her return from daycare and her mother getting home from work. There was also a three-month period during the winter where Parsons watched K.B. full-time.

On September 8, 2019, K.B., then five years old, disclosed to her mother that she had been sexually abused by Parsons when the two of them were home alone together. K.B.’s disclosures occurred when her mother was taking K.B. to a friend’s home for a play date. Mother and daughter were discussing "safe touching" in the car. K.B. then told her mother that Parsons had "touched her down there." K.B.’s mother asked clarifying questions and K.B. made additional disclosures indicating that Parsons had rubbed K.B.’s vagina with his fingers. She then took her daughter to the emergency room where K.B. received medical care and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection. She and her mother also met with a social worker and made contact with local police who were dispatched to the hospital. That night, K.B. and her mother moved out of their shared apartment with Parsons.

Law enforcement later set up an appointment for K.B. with St. Luke’s Children at Risk Evaluation Services ("CARES") at its Regional Medical Center in Boise, Idaho. CARES provides evaluations and treatment for children reporting abuse and neglect. It also specializes in forensic interviewing. A CARES evaluation generally consists of three stages: (1) a forensic interview with a medical social worker, (2) a psychosocial assessment by the same social worker, and (3) a medical examination conducted by a certified child abuse pediatrician. All interviews are conducted in accordance with the protocols of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ("NICHD"). A CARES interview can be observed by referring agents and medical providers through a closed-circuit television system to reduce the number of times a child must make traumatic disclosures.

On October 2, 2019, about 24 days after K.B.’s initial disclosure, K.B. met with Lara Foster, a medical social worker, for her CARES interview. Foster began the meeting by telling K.B. "that after speaking with her, she would see a nurse, and that it was their job to make sure that the child’s body is safe and healthy." As Foster established rapport with the child, K.B. told Foster she was "the best doctor ever." Foster responded by telling K.B. she was actually a social worker who works with nurses and doctors. Foster reminded K.B. that she would meet with a doctor after they talked. The investigating officer was able to watch the full interview through a closed-circuit television monitoring system.

During the interview, Foster asked a range of questions pursuant to NICHD protocols that would elicit statements from K.B. so that Foster, the CARES medical staff, and law enforcement would "fully understand what[ ] happened" to K.B. The questioning elicited multiple disclosures of sexual abuse. K.B. described instances where Parsons would remove her pants and rub her vaginal area with his hand, perform cunnilingus on her, or would force K.B. to use her hands or mouth on his penis until he ejaculated. K.B. also stated that Parsons showed her pornographic videos, including child pornography, on the television in her mother’s bedroom.

Following the CARES interview, K.B. underwent a psychosocial assessment and medical examination. Dr. Amy Barton, who performed K.B.’s medical exam, watched both of K.B.’s interviews via closed-circuit television to gather information that would assist her medical evaluation. Although no physical in- juries were found in the examination, specialized counseling services were recommended.

On December 10, 2019, a grand jury indicted Parsons on all counts. K.B. testified in the grand jury proceedings, restating the same disclosures of abuse she had made to Foster in the CARES interview. An arrest warrant immediately issued. A few days later, on December 17, 2019, K.B. made new disclosures to her mother regarding sexual abuse by Parsons. Her mother reported that while K.B. was looking for her cat under her mother’s bed, she saw a box containing a pink vibrator, which K.B.’s mother and Parsons had, used in their relationship. K.B. told her mother she found something Parsons used "to hurt her," describing and referencing the vibrator.

A second CARES interview was set up for January 9, 2020, and K.B. was again interviewed by Foster. An investigating officer watched the interview via closed-circuit television. K.B. told Foster that the vibrator was pink, had buttons, turned on and off, and made a motor noise. She drew a picture of it for Foster and explained that Parsons would use the device to "tickle" her "private part." K.B. also repeated many of her earlier disclosures of sexual abuse by Parsons. At one point, K.B. told Foster that Parsons’ penis touched her, and the officer watching the interview flashed a light to interrupt the interview’s process. On a break from the questioning, the officer asked Foster to direct her questions to clarify from K.B. what she meant when she said that Parsons’ penis "touched" her. At another point in the interview, K.B. danced around and told Foster that Parsons had been put in jail because of her disclosures.

Following his arrest, Parsons pleaded not guilty and waived his right to a speedy trial. On March 17, 2020, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce K.B.’s CARES interview and medical records from October 2, 2019, at trial, arguing the materials—though hearsay—were admissible under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception under Idaho Rule of Evidence 803(4). Anticipating Parsons would raise an argument under the Confrontation Clause, the State added that it "anticipates that K.B. will testify at trial" but argued that if she did not, the CARES interviews were still admissible as they were "generally nontestimonial." Parsons responded that he "[had] no objection to the State using the CARES report to supplement [K.B.’s] testimony," but objected to the interviews’ admission in the event K.B. did not testify. He argued that this would be a violation of the right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. Of note, the State explained in its motion that it "[was] not seeking to introduce the interview video from the January 9, 2020 CARES interview."

The district court overruled Parsons’ objection and determined that the CARES interview and medical records from October 2, 2019, were admissible because their primary purpose was to "provide medical care to K.B." rather than to "establish or prove past events that were potentially relevant to criminal prosecution." In reaching its decision, the court emphasized the factors of K.B.’s age, her lack of familiarity with the criminal justice system, that the interviews were conducted by a social worker, and that the purpose of the interviews and subsequent exams were to ensure K.B. was "safe and healthy." The court explained:

K.B. is only five years old and there is no evidence (or assertion by the Defendant) that she is familiar with the criminal justice system or intended her statements to be a substitute for trial testimony. On the contrary, as in Ohio v. Clark, it is likely that a young child in K.B.’s "circumstances would simply want the abuse to end, would want to protect other victims, or would have no discernible purpose at all." See Clark, 135 S. Ct. at 2182. In addition, the interviews were conducted by CARES employees, not law enforcement. K.B. was informed that the purpose of the interviews and the medical examination were to make sure that she was safe and healthy. Considering all of these factors, the [c]ourt concludes that K.B.’s statements made during the course of the CARES interviews and medical examination were non-testimonial. Therefore, the introduction of these materials (regardless of K.B.’s availability) does not violate the Defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.

The district court also noted in its decision that "[s]hould the Defendant have objections to specific portions of the CARES interviews or record, he should so object at trial."

On February 25, 2021, about two weeks before trial, Parsons filed a motion to continue...