State v. Martin
Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 55207,55207 |
Citation | State v. Martin, 217 N.W.2d 536 (Iowa 1974) |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Charles Reno MARTIN, a/k/a William Gottfried, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John P. Roehrick, Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Sullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ray Fenton, County Atty., and Michael Hansen, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.
Considered en banc.
Defendant, Charles Reno Martin, a/k/a William Gottfried, appeals from judgment on jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery with aggravation in violation of The Code 1971, Sections 711.1,711.2.We reverse.
April 30, 1971, a gun point robbery was perpetrated at the Safeway Super Market store, East 14th and University in Des Moines.About an hour later the police arrested Martin.He then had in his possession a sack of money identified as having come from said store, and a pistol.By information defendant was accused of the above stated offense.
Prior to trial defense counsel moved for an order in limine by which the State would be prohibited from making any inpresence-of-jury inquiry of Martin regarding his prior felony convictions, except those related to truth and veracity.This motion was overruled.
Like objections were interposed as to such evidence at appropriate stages during the trial and again overruled.Ultimately on cross-examination, Martin admitted he had been previously convicted of several prior felonies.
Defendant's attorney also endeavored to prove Martin was under the influence of narcotics at time of the aforesaid robbery.In support thereof several attempts were made to introduce opinion evidence, via hypothetical questions asked of a claimed expert, as to the effect drugs had upon people.Objections thereto because of inadequate foundation and absence of qualifications on the part of the witness were sustained.
In support of a reversal defendant here asserts, trial court erred in (1) allowing prosecution cross-examination of defendant regarding prior felony convictions unrelated to truth and veracity, and (2) refusing to permit introduction of testimony by a defense called expert witness.
The effect of prior felony convictions upon testimonial rights has long been a matter of concern to both courts and legal scholars.
At common law a person was deemed incompetent to testify if he or she had previously been convicted of what was termed an 'infamous crime'.See2 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 519--520(3d ed.);McCormick on Evidence, § 43 at 89(1954).See generally12 DrakeL.Rev. 141(1963).
The above rule was later abolished by statutory enactments in every state.SeeCode§ 622.1, 622.3.
In so doing, however, the legislative bodies in most jurisdictions enacted statutes comparable to our Code§ 622.17 which says: A witness may be interrogated as to his previous conviction for a felony.No other proof is competent, except the record thereof.'
This Act constitutes a statutorily imposed exception to the basic rule that evidence showing the commission of crimes other than the one with which an accused stands charged is not ordinarily admissible.SeeState v. Wright, 191 N.W.2d 638, 639--640(Iowa1971).
Furthermore, evidence made competent by the above quoted statute is for the sole purpose of impugning the credibility of a witness.SeeBrown v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 220, 370 F.2d 242, 244(1966);State v. Milford, 186 N.W.2d 590, 593(Iowa1971);State v. Anderson, 159 N.W.2d 809, 812(Iowa1968);Gaskill v. Gahman, 255 Iowa 891, 896, 124 N.W.2d 533(1968);State v. Underwood, 248 Iowa 443, 445--446, 80 N.W.2d 730(1957);41 IowaL.Rev. 325(1956).
On the other hand this court has not heretofore held the testimonial impeachment allowable under § 622.17 is restricted to felony convictions involving dishonesty, truth or veracity, nor limited as to time thereof.
Absence of any change in that regard is probably due to the fact that related error has not, in most instances, heretofore been preserved for appellate review.See e.g., State v. Shipp, 184 N.W.2d 679, 680(Iowa1971);State v. Schatterman, 171 N.W.2d 890, 896(Iowa1969);State v. Anderson, 159 N.W.2d at 812--813.
We are satisfied, however, the instantly assigned error was adequately preserved for consideration by this court.See generally22 DrakeL.Rev. 435, 445, 457--469(1973).See alsoGriggs v. State, 494 P.2d 795, 797(Alaska1972);cf.State v. Byrnes, 260 Iowa 765, 767, 150 N.W.2d 280(1967).
We inceptionally note this censorious observation in McCormick on Evidence, § 43 at 93--94:
See generallyDrew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 331 F.2d 85, 91(1964);State v. Underwood, 248 Iowa at 447--448, 80 N.W.2d at 733, State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 492 P.2d 657, 659--662(1971);People v. Farrar, 36 Mich.App. 294, 193 N.W.2d 363, 368--369 n. 20(1971);cf.Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 453, 69 S.Ct. 716, 723, 93 L.Ed. 790(1949)(concurring opinion);Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 479--481, 69 S.Ct. 213, 220--221, 93 L.Ed. 168(1948);41 Iowa L.Rev.at 337--345.But seeMcGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183, 215, 91 S.Ct. 1454, 1471, 28 L.Ed.2d 711(1971);Spencer v. State of Texas, 385 U.S. 554, 560--565, 87 S.Ct. 648, 652--654, 17 L.Ed.2d 606(1967);State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 210, 147 N.W.2d 869(1967);Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255, 260--262(1973).
Prior to trial, as previously observed, defense counsel moved the State be precluded from offering evidence in course of the prosecution regarding (1)defendant's prior felony convictions as to the same or a similar charge, or (2) any other conviction not involving truth and veracity.This motion was overruled.
During trial defendant testified on his own behalf and in response to an inquiry on direct examination stated he had been previously convicted of a felony.Noticeably he did not deny having ever been so convicted.
On cross-examination the county attorney inquired whether defendant had ever been convicted of burglary and voluntary manslaughter.Defendant's attorney promptly objected, first by renewal of grounds advanced in the above noted pretrial limine motion, then because (1) the question did not constitute prior course of conduct impeachment; (2) it did not go to truth and veracity; (3) it was designed to improperly prejudice the jury against defendant; and (4) it was immaterial and irrelevant.The objection was overruled and defendant thereupon stated he had been convicted of burglary, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping and some other crimes.
By objection to jury instructions given, and again on motion in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, defense counsel reasserted the foregoing objections regarding prior convictions not related to truth and veracity.
State initially maintains, however, the controverted prosecutorial inquiry was proper under our prior Code§ 622.17 holdings.
In resolving that issue we first address ourselves to the nature of an impeachment related prior felony conviction.
In that regard Chief Justice Warren Burger, while on the D.C. Court of Appeals, aptly stated in Gordon v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 383 F.2d 936, 940(1967):
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Binet
...444 U.S. 1034, 100 S.Ct. 706, 62 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); United States v. Oakes, 565 F.2d 170, 171-72 (1st Cir.1977); State v. Martin, 217 N.W.2d 536, 543-44 (Iowa 1974).5 The defendant testified that Brackett, the victim, drove up in his car, stopped and asked the defendant and his companion, ......
-
State v. Conner
...refused to pay him wages which were due. The trial court overruled the motion, and the State showed the conviction. In State v. Martin, 217 N.W.2d 536, 542 (Iowa 1974), we held a trial court has discretion to admit evidence of prior felony convictions to impeach a defendant when (1) the fel......
-
U.S. v. Belt, s. 72-1887
...State v. Roth, 200 Kan. 677, 438 P.2d 58 (1968) (by statute).Thirteen states have adopted some form of the Luck rule, see State v. Martin, 217 N.W.2d 536 (Iowa 1974); People v. Jackson, 391 Mich. 323, 217 N.W.2d 22 (1974); Commonwealth v. Binghum, 452 Pa. 554, 307 A.2d 255 (1973); People v.......
-
Com. v. Diaz
...R.I., 405 A.2d 1181, 1187 (1979); c People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 (1974); State v. Martin, 217 N.W.2d 536, 543, 544 (Iowa 1974). True it is that the significant factors, like those set out in United States v. Gordon, supra, would be best appreciate......