DES MOINES – A Greene man who was found guilty by a jury of raping a woman and was sentenced to spend up to 10 years in prison has lost an appeal in the case.
The Floyd county sheriff’s office filed a charge of third-degree sexual abuse against Stephen Brodersen, then living in Greene, Iowa, in Floyd county. Court records show an alleged sex abuse crime took place on May 21, 2016 in Marble Rock while Brodersen lived there. Brodersen raped a female house guest from out of state who told him “no” more than once before he had sex with her.
A Floyd County jury returned the guilty verdict on Thursday, October 6, 2016. Brodersen’s sentence was handed down Friday, December 2, 2016 by Judge Christopher Foy. He must also pay $2,060.30 in court costs. He was shipped to the Iowa Medical and Classification Center in Coralville, where he still remains at this time.
Brodersen appealed his conviction, arguing the district court erred or abused its discretion when it permitted the victim’s examining nurse to testify, over Brodersen’s objection, to statements made by the victim to the nurse during the nurse’s examination of the victim. Brodersen argues the district court erred in finding the hearsay exception concerning medical treatment applied to permit the nurse’s hearsay testimony, because, he alleges, the victim’s statements to the examining nurse were not made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment but rather given in response to the nurse’s questions as part of the nurse’s forensic examination. Brodersen essentially contends that because the victim did not initiate medical treatment on her own, but rather only sought treatment after law enforcement officials encouraged her to do so, the statements made by the victim to her examining nurse were not made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Additionally, Brodersen points out the nurse testified she obtained information from the victim to determine what forensic evidence to obtain and that some of the information related to her by the victim was not pertinent to the victim’s medical treatment. He also notes the examining nurse was not asked at trial if she explained to the victim “that the purpose of the exam was for medical treatment or that truthful answers were needed to ensure appropriate treatment.” Brodersen claims the testimony of the nurse recounting the victim’s statements, including those he contends were not relevant to her treatment, served to bolster the victim’s credibility to his detriment, “tipp[ing] the scales toward Brodersen’s guilt” and resulting in prejudice to him. It is true the victim did not initiate treatment; nevertheless, it was the victim that—on her own—told the 9-1-1 dispatcher she had been sexually abused by Brodersen, in addition to relating Brodersen’s medical emergency that day. The victim told the responding officers she had been sexually abused by Brodersen, and it was the victim that ultimately chose to go to the hospital for an examination, told the emergency room staff she had been sexually abused, waited to be examined by the sexual-assault nurse examiner, and then told the nurse what happened. We believe these circumstances are evidence of the victim’s motivation to be truthful. While the statements made by the victim to the nurse were used to determine what forensic evidence to obtain, we believe all of the statements were made for purposes of medical diagnosis, if not for medical treatment. That the matters overlap is due to the nature of the crime. The medical professionals ask questions to determine what happened and what treatment is required. In making those assessments, evidence related to a crime is collected, if available and appropriate. The victim did not have to submit to the sexual-abuse examination or answer the examining nurse’s questions; she chose to do so. The victim told the nurse the actions Brodersen took related to the sexual abuse, beginning to end.
More significantly, according to court records, there was other evidence in the record that bolstered the victim’s testimony—the messages sent by Brodersen to the victim via social media after the sexual abuse. One message stated Brodersen was “very sorry that things went further than [she] wanted.” After many more messages to the victim, the victim responded, “Even when I said no you continued to try last night . . . . I told you that I didn’t want to be with you not like that…. [W]hat you did last night was rape…. I said no on more than one occasion.” Brodersen replied that he was “so sorry” and that he hurt her and it was messing him up. He told her he would not “touch [her] without [her] permission from now on.”
In light of these facts, the Iowa Court of Appeals disagreed with Brodersen’s claims and upheld his conviction.
Isn’t this the same guy who killed his mom?
I feel sorry for him
got some nooky and now wishes he wouldn’t have