State v. Anderson
Iowa Supreme Court
636 N.W.2d 26 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Mark Anderson (defendant) lived with his wife on his family farm in Iowa. In the summer of 1998, Anderson hired J.D., a 15-year-old girl, to work on the farm. During the summer, Anderson engaged in sexual intercourse with J.D. on four separate occasions. J.D.’s parents became suspicious of Anderson and forced J.D. to quit her job on Anderson’s farm. J.D. did not tell her parents that she had sexual intercourse with Anderson. In September 1999, the principal at J.D.’s school, where Anderson worked as a softball coach, told J.D.’s parents that he had received a report that Anderson had sexually abused J.D. Following that report, J.D. admitted to her parents and to the police that Anderson had engaged in sexual intercourse with her. Anderson was charged with statutory rape. During the trial, J.D. described the four instances of sexual abuse, described the interior of the camper in which the assaults took place, and described the appearance of Anderson’s naked body. The prosecution called Anderson’s wife, who was by then his ex-wife, to testify, and she corroborated J.D.’s descriptions of the camper and Anderson’s body. Anderson’s ex-wife also shared details from a conversation she had with Anderson in the summer of 1998 about his concerning relationship with J.D. Anderson was convicted and sentenced to prison. Anderson appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing his ex-wife to testify in contravention of spousal privilege.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cady, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.