State v. Greene, 97-850
| Decision Date | 24 March 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-850,97-850 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Paul Jay GREENE, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Kevin Cmelik and Stephan J. Japuntich, Assistant State Appellate Defenders, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Kimberly Griffith, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, CARTER, SNELL, and TERNUS, JJ.
A jury found the defendant, Paul Greene, guilty of multiple drug offenses. Greene appeals his convictions, raising three issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion in denying him the opportunity to impeach one of the State's witnesses; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of distribution of a controlled substance to a minor, see Iowa Code § 124.406(1)(a) (1995); and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct. Finding no basis for reversal, we affirm.
The jury could have found the following facts. Law enforcement officers from the Waterloo and Cedar Falls police departments conducted an ongoing investigation of possible drug trafficking by Greene, his roommates Chad Kane (a minor) and James Reese, as well as Kim Paradine, Pam Truax, and Glen Steils. The officers obtained search warrants to search the trailer shared by Greene, Kane and Reese, and to search the residences of Paradine and Steils.
On the day the search warrants were issued, the authorities received information that persons from the trailer would be going to one of the other residences to obtain methamphetamine for resale at the trailer. The officers staked out the trailer and observed individuals entering the trailer, staying for ten or fifteen minutes, and then leaving.
Eventually two individuals from the trailer left in a vehicle; the officers followed in an unmarked car. The police were able to identify the occupants of the vehicle as Kane and Reese. Kane and Reese drove to Paradine's house, but apparently found no one home. (Officers would later learn that Paradine had left to buy methamphetamine.) The men then drove around for a short time, ultimately returning to Paradine's residence. They entered the house, stayed a short time, and then returned to their vehicle.
Meanwhile, other officers executed a search warrant at Greene's trailer. Greene and five other individuals, including two minors, were present in the living room. A search of the trailer resulted in the discovery and seizure of the following drugs and drug-related items: from the living room, some loose marijuana and a large joint found on a table, a cigar box on the table containing approximately 140 hits of LSD, a postal scale, a marijuana bong, and a notebook appearing to contain records of drug sales; from a bedroom, a safe containing six hits of LSD and a bottle of a pharmaceutical used as a cutting agent for methamphetamine, a beam scale, a canister containing bindles or trifolds used to hold methamphetamine for sale, and two mirrors used to chop methamphetamine; and from the rear bedroom, a "buzzbee" used to smoke marijuana and another notebook containing drug records, including a snitch list. During execution of the warrant, Reese and Kane returned. They were searched and the police discovered two "eight balls" of methamphetamine on Reese, weighing approximately 6.86 grams. On the same day, the authorities executed the other search warrants and arrested Paradine, Truax, and Paradine's boyfriend.
After several amendments to the trial information, Reese and Greene were charged with the following crimes: (1) possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c); (2) possession with intent to deliver LSD in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(a); (3) failure to affix a tax stamp in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.12; and (4) possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(3). In addition, Greene was charged with distribution of a controlled substance to a minor. See Iowa Code § 124.406(1). After a joint trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all charges. Greene appealed.
A. Procedural background. At trial, the State called officer Richard Knief, a nineteen-year veteran of the police force who was actively involved in the investigation and arrests of the defendants. Knief testified extensively concerning the surveillance of the three residences, the activity leading up to the issuance of the search warrants, his role in the execution of the warrants, and the items seized from the residences searched. In addition to testifying as a fact witness, Knief also testified as an expert witness with respect to illegal drugs and drug dealing.
During cross-examination of this witness, Greene sought to impeach Knief with a ruling issued by a federal district court judge in an unrelated case. In the federal ruling, the judge had suppressed evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, finding Knief had made false, or at least misleading, statements to the judge issuing the warrant. Greene asserted this incident showed Knief's propensity for dishonesty. The district court sustained the State's objection to this evidence, ruling that any relevancy of the evidence to the witness's credibility was "far outweighed by the waste of time and needless consideration of extraneous issues."
On appeal, Greene claims this evidence was admissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence 608. Rule 608 governs the admissibility of evidence concerning the character or conduct of a witness as it reflects on the witness's credibility. The rule states in relevant part:
(a) Opinion and Reputation Evidence of Character. The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation, but subject to these limitations: (1) the evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness....
(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness....
B. Scope of review. We review a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 608 for abuse of discretion. See Iowa R. Evid. 608(b) (); State v. Caldwell, 529 N.W.2d 282, 285 (Iowa 1995) (). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court "exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." State v. Smith, 522 N.W.2d 591, 593 (Iowa 1994). Even if an abuse of discretion is found, reversal is required only when the abuse is prejudicial. See Caldwell, 529 N.W.2d at 285 (); State v. Clark, 325 N.W.2d 381, 383 (Iowa 1982) ().
C. Error preservation--rule 608(b). The State initially contends that Greene did not preserve error on the trial court's exclusion of this impeachment evidence under rule 608(b). We agree.
Iowa Rule of Evidence 103(a) provides:
(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and
....
(2) Offer of Proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
An offer of proof serves to give the trial court an adequate basis for its evidentiary ruling and to make a record for appellate review. See State v. Lange, 531 N.W.2d 108, 114 (Iowa 1995). Such a record is necessary so the reviewing court does not have to "base error on speculation as to the answers that would have been given to questions" had the questions been asked. Id.
Greene did make an offer of proof when the State objected to his attempted impeachment of Knief, but the State claims the offer was inadequate. In an offer of proof outside the presence of the jury, Greene elicited the following testimony:
Greene's counsel: Judge [J]arvey made written findings of fact about the warrant [application] that you had written. Is that correct?
Officer Knief: Yes.
At page 6 there is a one line statement regarding the information is simply not true.
At page 7 there is a one line statement that the warrant is further misleading in that it admits facts--and at page 11 in the middle of the page there is a long two sentence piece talking about how Officer Knief could not have entertained the thought that these statements could have been true.
With that, Your Honor, I have made my offer of proof.
A copy of the federal ruling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Crawford
...2016) ; State v. Brubaker , 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011) ; State v. Truesdell , 679 N.W.2d 611, 615–16 (Iowa 2004) ; State v. Greene , 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999) ; Crone , 545 N.W.2d at 270 ; Geier , 484 N.W.2d at 170 ; State v. Dickerson , 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981).1 Although t......
-
Sillick v. Ault
...at the time of the act. State v. Lee, 494 N.W.2d 706 (Iowa 1993). Counsel had no duty to raise this meritless issue. State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999). Second, we address Sillick's equal protection and due process claims. Due process requires that jury instructions adequately i......
-
State v. Crawford
...perform such review. See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 907 N.W.2d 112, 116 (Iowa 2018); State v. Harris, 891 N.W.2d 182, 185 (Iowa 2017); Greene, 592 N.W.2d at 29-30; 545 N.W.2d at 270; State v. Breitbach, 488 N.W.2d 444, 447 (Iowa 1992); State v. Bumpus, 459 N.W.2d 619, 627 (Iowa 1990); State v H......
-
State v. Graves
...of defense counsel: (1) trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) this omission resulted in prejudice. State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999). A defendant's inability to prove either element is fatal. In re Interest of C.M., 652 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa "Generally, ine......