from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Chris Foy,
Debettignies appeals his conviction for third-degree sexual
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, (until withdrawal) and
Melinda J. Nye, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ.
Debettignies appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the
third degree. He contends the district court abused its
discretion by prohibiting him from impeaching the complaining
witness with certain evidence. We find error was not
preserved. So we affirm.
Facts and Prior Proceedings
State charged Debettignies with third-degree sexual abuse.
C.B. was the complaining witness.
to trial, the State filed a motion in limine. Among other
things, the State sought to exclude evidence of an incident
in which C.B. threatened to accuse a police officer of
inappropriately touching her during a mental-health
commitment. Debettignies resisted, arguing he should be able
to use the information to impeach C.B.'s truthfulness.
The court sustained the motion.
matter proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted
Debettignies as charged. He now appeals.
appeals the district court's motion in limine ruling. He
argues the district court abused its discretion by preventing
him from questioning C.B. about her threat to accuse a police
officer of inappropriately touching her. The State contends
the issue was not preserved for review. We agree with the
we review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an
abuse of discretion." Wailes v. Hy-Vee, Inc.,
861 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). "However, a
'ruling sustaining a motion in limine is generally not an
evidentiary ruling.'" Id. (citation
omitted). "Rather, a ruling sustaining a motion in
limine simply adds a procedural step to the ...