State of Iowa v. Allan Robert Sievers

Summary

The court held that hearsay testimony about the victim's statement to Nikki did not qualify as an "initial disclosure" under the statutory hearsay exception because the victim had already disclosed the abuse to Malcolm. The error was prejudicial because the testimony helped establish the timing of the abuse and rebut the possibility that another person committed it, requiring reversal and a new trial. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. A dissent would have affirmed, concluding that the statute permits testimony about more than one early disclosure and that any error was harmless.