State v. Engeman
| Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 56551,56551 |
| Citation | 217 N.W.2d 638 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James Edward ENGEMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Alan N. Waples, Burlington, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David E. Linquist, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Steven S. Hoth, County Atty., for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, REES, UHLENHOPP and McCORMICK, JJ.
After pleading guilty to a charge of delivery of a controlled substance (LSD) under Code § 204.401(1), defendant sought a reduced sentence as an accommodation offender under Code § 204.410. Trial court found the offense was not an accommodation offense and sentenced defendant accordingly. He appeals and we affirm.
The questions presented are whether trial court erred in admitting three address books in evidence and in finding defendant was not an accommodation offender.
I. Admitting the exhibits. Three address books were found among defendant's effects at the time of his arrest. On cross-examination he identified one of them as a book used by him two or three years before the June 14, 1972, offense when contemplating becoming a drug dealer. It contains numerous entries one might reasonably associate with a person so engaged. Next to the name 'Sherm' in various places, for example, are such references as 'coke-price?', 'wants at 8-250,000 hits Boston', 'wants 1 or 2 lbs hash', 'wants 5,500 hits speed--10cents', 'has weed--has Coke--wants Quadriles.' The terms 'mesc', 'MDA', 'weed', 'coke', 'meth', 'pot', 'downers', 'speed' and 'black beauties' appear frequently next to names and references to quantity and price. Defendant acknowledged the terms identify kinds of drugs.
Two other books were identified by defendant as current address books. Although they mainly contain only names, addresses, and phone numbers, and no obvious references to drugs, defendant admitted some of the persons named, including 'Sherm', are the same as listed in his older book as prospective drug customers. He contends trial court should have sustained his objection to the exhibits based on remoteness.
An objection based on remoteness essentially raises an issue of relevancy. 'While remoteness in point of time does not necessarily render evidence irrelevant, it may do so where the elapsed time is so great as to negative all rational or logical connection between the fact sought to be proved and the remote evidence offered in proof thereof.' 1 Jones on Evidence, § 4:1 at 380 (Sixth Ed. 1972). The basic test of relevancy is whether the evidence offered would make the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Mathias, 216 N.W.2d 319 (Iowa 1974). The question of relevancy, and thus the effect of remoteness, is determined by the sound discretion of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sharkey, 65379
...excluding the evidence of pre-hearing mental condition. An objection based on remoteness raises an issue of relevancy. State v. Engeman, 217 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1974). The basic test for relevancy is whether the evidence offered would render the desired inference more probable than it wou......
-
State v. Buelow
...rational or logical connection between the fact sought to be proved and the remote evidence offered in proof thereof." State v. Engeman , 217 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1974) (quoting 1 Clifford S. Fishman & Anne T. McKenna, Jones on Evidence , § 4:1, at 380 (6th ed. 1972)). This court has said ......
-
State v. Casady
...is whether the evidence offered would make the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Engeman, 217 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1974). It follows that the facts of the prior crimes entered into evidence must be sufficiently similar to the assault upon S.O. ......
-
Poulos' Estate, In re
...is whether the evidence offered would make the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Engeman, 217 N.W.2d 638, 639 (Iowa 1974). When evidence which is apparently inadmissible may be admissible for a limited purpose, the party offering it has the duty......