State v. Pilcher
| Citation | 242 N.W.2d 367 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 58024,58024 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Robert Eugene PILCHER, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Thomas M. Walter, Ottumwa, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Thomas Mann, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Samuel O. Erhardt, County Atty., for appellee.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES and McCORMICK, JJ.
After indictment by the Grand Jury, defendant was convicted of the crime of perjury committed in violation of § 721.1, The Code. He appeals, and we affirm the judgment.
The perjury charge grew out of defendant's testimony in his earlier trial for sodomy, a crime of which he was also convicted. His conviction was reversed on appeal. See State v. Pilcher, Iowa, 242 N.W.2d 348, filed May 19, 1976. The reversal was solely on the ground our sodomy statute (§ 705.1, The Code) is unconstitutional as applied to defendant under the given circumstances.
In the sodomy trial defendant was said to have handcuffed his victim, Roma Waterhouse, before forcing her to submit to him. Defendant denied he had handcuffs at the time of the offense. He testified he bought them later from Robert Shinafelt.
The testimony in the sodomy trial which the State says was prejurious is the following:
'I got (the handcuffs) a little before four o'clock before I took my wife to dinner on April 5, 1974.'
The time defendant testified he obtained the handcuffs was After the alleged sodomy was committed. Defendant's testimony above set out related to a point crucial to the sodomy prosecution. Roma Waterhouse's whole story, emphasizing as it did her nonconsent to the sodomitical act, was premised on the use of force initiated when defendant handcuffed her hands behind her back.
If the jury believed defendant did not have these handcuffs at the time of the assault, Mrs. Waterhouse's credibility would have been seriously impaired, if not completely destroyed.
We explained the elements of perjury in State v. Deets, 195 N.W.2d 118, 122 (Iowa 1972), where we said:
'A false statement of fact knowingly made under oath or affirmation is material and will support a charge of perjury if it directly or circumstantially (1) supports or attacks the credibility of a witness, or (2) has a legitimate tendency to prove or disprove some relevant fact irrespective of the main fact at issue, or (3) is capable of influencing the court, officer, tribunal or other body created by law on any proper matter of inquiry.'
The testimony heretofore set out, brief though it was, clearly meets the Deets definition of perjury. The fact the case in which the false testimony was given has been reversed is immaterial.
Defendant raises the following issues:
1. Error in permitting the jury to consider the Grand Jury indictment charging defendant with sodomy;
2. Error in permitting testimony concerning the use of handcuffs and the effect thereof on the sodomy victim;
3. Denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict; and
4. Error in sentencing procedures.
I. We consider first the question concerning the trial court's admission of the sodomy indictment as an exhibit, permitting the State to read the indictment to the jury, and later allowing the exhibit to go to the jury room during that body's deliberations.
Defendant says this was reversible error. He argues the indictment had no probative value and that the jury was prejudiced by knowledge he was accused of such an infamous crime. We hold the indictment was properly admitted.
In a perjury prosecution it is the general rule the jury must know enough about the circumstances under which the offense occurred to permit an intelligent consideration of the case. Instead defendant would limit their knowledge to the bare statement relied on taken out of testimonial context with no reference to the circumstantial background against which it was made. We reject defendant's argument. See 60 Am.Jur.2d, Perjury, § 60, page 1001 (1972); 70 C.J.S. Perjury § 54, pages 526--527 (1951). Cf. State v. Thompson, 254 Iowa 331, 335, 117 N.W.2d 514, 516 (1962).
A somewhat similar problem was posed in People v. Standard, 32 N.Y.2d 143, 344 N.Y.S.2d 331, 333, 297 N.E.2d 77, 78--79 (1973), where the Court of Appeals of New York in considering a perjury case said:
'We are in accord with the doctrine that, in cases of this nature, in order to make the subject matter of a defendant's perjury intelligible to the jury, some general background evidence of the nature and structure of the scheme is permissible (citations).
'* * *
'Despite our agreement with the principle that some background testimony is permissible in cases of this nature, we emphasize that, as in People v. Gleason, 285 App.Div. 278, 281--282, 136 N.Y.S.2d 220, 224 Supra, 'the introduction of such (background) evidence must be carefully monitored by the trial judge, as it is an accommodation that the general rules of evidence must at times make to the exigencies of the particular instance. * * * Every precaution must be taken lest it spill over its barriers and distort the jury's contemplation of the determinative and critical evidence."
We agree with the rationale of this statement, both as to the necessity for the jury to be informed and the danger of prejudice if the evidence is not carefully monitored.
In the present case, the jury heard nothing except that defendant had been tried for sodomy. The indictment recited no details. No lurid circumstances were shown. The fact the indictment did not describe a 'nice' crime is not alone sufficient to keep the jury in ignorance of the manner in which the perjury charge arose.
We find no error in this assignment.
II. In a somewhat related issue, defendant asserts it was error to allow Roma Waterhouse to testify concerning the use of the handcuffs and the effect such use had upon her. Defendant's complaint rests principally on the ground of relevancy. As in Division I, he insists the admission of such testimony was highly prejudicial.
As already pointed out, the State's case rested on proving beyond a reasonable doubt defendant had in his possession a pair of handcuffs at the disputed time. The two principal witnesses--Roma Waterhouse and defendant--categorically differed on this vital matter. Defendant seemingly would limit the evidence to a stark affirmation by her and denial by him. He argues, implicitly at least, no other testimony is relevant or material in deciding the handcuff issue. We refuse to take such a narrow view under the record before us.
We set out the testimony of Roma Waterhouse with reference to this matter:
'* * *
'* * *
'* * *
* * *
'Q.--later?
'
Defendant's complaints deal with three questions and answers which related to the jury that defendant placed the handcuffs on Mrs. Waterhouse and that they left red marks which later turned to bruises lasting about a week.
Counsel interposed objections to these questions, all on the basis of incompetency, irrelevancy and immateriality. The first two objections sought to exclude Mrs. Waterhouse's testimony about defendant's conduct during the commission of the crime itself.
Both of these questions and their answers were clearly admissible. They were simply descriptive of the manner in which the crime was committed. In State v. Drake, 219 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Iowa 1974), this appears:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. Pate
...5 S.Ct. at 937–38, 29 L.Ed. at 91.12 In some cases, we have specifically noted crimes as infamous in nature. See State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 367, 368–69 (Iowa 1976) (sodomy); State v. Gruver, 260 Iowa 131, 134, 148 N.W.2d 405, 407 (1967) (forgery); Kotek v. Bennett, 255 Iowa 984, 988, 124 ......
-
State v. Trudo, 59279
...State v. Johnson, 219 N.W.2d 690, 698-699 (Iowa 1974); see United States v. Parker, 491 F.2d 517, 524 (8th Cir. 1973); State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Iowa 1976); State v. Mattingly, 220 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Iowa An ancillary rule is involved in determining whether defendant's rights hav......
-
State v. Duncan
...physical facts whether they helped his case, hurt his case, or were neutral. The defense had a corresponding right. State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Iowa 1976); State v. Drake, 219 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Iowa 1974) ("(T)he circumstances surrounding the commission of a crime may ordinarily b......
-
State v. Watson
...brandished a knife out of the car window as Six was pursuing them. See State v. Henning, 238 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 1976); State v. Pilcher, 242 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1976); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748 (Iowa 1975); State v. Oppedal, supra, 232 N.W.2d at 520--522; State v. Guess, 223 N.W.......