N.K., Minor Child, Appellant. v. << (2026)

The juvenile court found N.K. delinquent for committing sexual abuse in the second degree against his half-sister, E.V. After limiting ourselves to preserved errors and deferring to the juvenile court's express credibility finding, we affirm.

In fourth grade, when she was ten years old, E.V. was crying at school and told a counselor that watching a movie brought up memories of N.K. sexually abusing her from ages five or six through nine. The school contacted the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, which notified police and arranged for E.V. to be forensically interviewed and physically examined at a child protection center.

E.V was in fifth grade as of the delinquency proceeding. She brought a stuffed animal to the witness stand and told the court her “brother sexually assaulted” and “raped” her “when [she] was little.” She said the abuse happened multiple times, but she remembered a few incidents more clearly. On one occasion, N.K. took off her clothes and touched her “private parts” with his hand while they were inside a pink unicorn tent, when she was six or seven years old. On at least one other occasion, N.K. sexually abused her on a bed, but E.V. remembered fewer details about the bed compared to the pink unicorn tent. She described seeing N.K.’s penis and said that his penis touched the “outside” of her vaginal area. She said the abuse happened “a lot.” She didn't tell anyone because she “was too scared.”

A child protection center worker testified regarding the dynamics of child sexual abuse. And a sexual assault nurse examiner testified that E.V. described being repeatedly sexually assaulted by N.K.

The children's mother testified as a witness for N.K. She brought the pink unicorn tent with her to trial. And she testified that E.V. told her N.K. “stuck ․ his thing in her” and sexually abused her.

N.K. testified and denied the abuse. He said he had not seen E.V. naked since she was out of diapers.

The juvenile court expressly found E.V. “credible” and concluded the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that N.K. committed sexual abuse in the second degree.¹ The court adjudicated N.K. delinquent. N.K. appeals, challenging some aspects of the forensic interviewer's qualifications as well as the sufficiency of the evidence.

First, we conclude N.K. did not preserve any evidentiary claim regarding the forensic interviewer's qualifications for expert testimony. We thus have nothing to review. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

As to sufficiency of the evidence, N.K. cites State v. Smith, 508 N.W.2d 101, 103 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993), to argue E.V.’s testimony was “conclusory” and “contradictory” and should not have been believed. We formally overruled Smith last year because it was “never ․ followed” and was “irreconcilable with our standards of review as a court for correction of errors at law.” State v. Lang, 30 N.W.3d 757, 766 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). After subtracting the arguments foreclosed by Smith, there is little left of N.K.’s appellate brief.

To the extent any issue is properly before us, we first defer to the juvenile court's credibility finding, as that court saw E.V. and N.K. testify live and was in the best position to assess their credibility. We also independently find E.V.’s testimony credible: it contains age-appropriate detail and it was largely consistent across time. A victim's credible testimony, standing alone, is sufficient to make a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 764–65; State v. Hernandez, 20 N.W.3d 502, 507–08 (Iowa Ct. App. 2025) (en banc). We are not persuaded by N.K.’s suggestion on appeal that E.V.’s report of him abusing her is somehow less credible because she was also abused by other family members.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In its ruling, the juvenile court found N.K. acted with specific intent. This finding is not necessary for the adjudication. Sexual abuse is a general-intent offense. Lamphere v. State, 348 N.W.2d 212, 217 (Iowa 1984). This misapprehension of the elements is not challenged by any party and is harmless, as the juvenile court found the evidence cleared a higher bar than required.

Opinion by Buller, J.