State v. Shultz
| Decision Date | 31 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 57668,57668 |
| Citation | 231 N.W.2d 585 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Timothy Lee SHULTZ, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Jere C. Maddux, Hegland, Newbrough, Johnston & Brewer, Ames, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Thomas Mann, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ruth Harkin, County Atty., for appellee.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, LeGRAND and McCORMICK, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction by jury and sentence for breaking and entering in violation of § 708.8, The Code. Although we find no merit in four of his five assignments of error, we reverse and remand because we agree with his contention the trial court erred in allowing police identification tags to be taken into the jury room.
The Northside Fruit and Grocery in Ames was equipped with a 'silent' burglar alarm. When activated by a forced entry of the store, it would not ring there but would ring at the Ames police station. At 4:33 a.m. on Easter Sunday, April 14, 1974, the alarm sounded at the police station.
Officers Bargabos and Campbell were directed by radio to investigate. They traveled separately to the store. Bargabos arrived first and immediately checked to see whether the front door was broken. While doing so, he saw a person running from the store area toward a grove of trees to the north. He gave chase but could not find the person, nor did he see him clearly enough to identify him. He returned to the store. By then officer Campbell had arrived, and the two officers began a search of the grove, using flashlights. At about 4:45 a.m. they found the defendant and Robert Rank lying flat on the ground under an evergreen tree. The two men were arrested and taken to the police station by Bargabos.
Campbell examined the store building. He discovered a door on the roof of the store which had been broken in several places and was ajar. Wood splinters were visible on the roof, and mud had been tracked about six feet into the attic of the store.
The temperature was near freezing, and the ground was wet. A later Bureau of Criminal Investigation comparison of the mud in the store with mud on defendant's shoes showed it to be of common origin. A car belonging to Rank was found parked about two blocks north and one block east of the store. About two hours after the arrest, the officers discovered a hammer under the tree where the men had been lying. The BCI report said the hammer was not the instrumentality used to pry open the door. Gloves and mittens taken from defendant and Rank were examined by the BCI for traces of wood and paint, but the results were engative.
I. Identification tags prepared by the Ames police were attached to eight State exhibits and two defense exhibits. The tags remained on the exhibits after they were received in evidence. At the close of the trial, defense counsel moved the court to require removal of the tags from the exhibits before they were given to the jury, alleging they would prejudice the defendant's case by unfairly emphasizing the State's testimony regarding the gathering of evidence against the defendant and Rank. The motion was overruled.
In State v. Branch, 222 N.W.2d 423 (Iowa 1974), we held it is reversible error to permit identification tags containing a condensation of the State's case to go to the jury. Sending the tags into the jury room has the effect of unduly emphasizing State evidence. Prejudicial error occurs even when the recitals on the tags are merely cumulative of State testimony.
The identification tag attached to State's exhibit 5, gloves and mittens taken from defendant and Rank, is typical of those which accompanied the exhibits to the jury:
The comprehensiveness of this information is not materially different from that found objectionable in the Branch case. See 222 N.W.2d at 425. Once an exhibit has been received in evidence, no proper purpose exists for leaving attached to it an identification tag which summarizes the State's testimony regarding the exhibit.
The trial judge in this case did not have the benefit of our Branch decision because the trial in this case occurred several months before Branch was decided. However, under the rule in Branch it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gilmore
...even from experts, as conclusive. It may be accepted in whole, in part, or not at all. * * * (citing authority)." State v. Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1975). In the present case, the trial court, as explained in its ruling denying defendant's motion to suppress, gave consideration to ......
-
State v. Reese, 59747
...are given to a jury, unduly emphasize the State's case against the defendant and require a reversal of the conviction. See State v. Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 1975); State v. Branch, 222 N.W.2d 423 (Iowa Our opinions in Shultz and Branch, above, were based on the fact that tags attached t......
-
State v. Sims, 57952
...were entirely consistent with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any rational hypothesis of innocence. State v. Schultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Iowa 1975). We review the evidence in this case with those principles in November 29, 1970, was a Saturday. Defendant, who was employed in Waver......
-
State v. Fuhrmann, 59256
...of the offense, it is generally admissible in evidence. State v. Nowlin, 244 N.W.2d 596, 602 (Iowa 1976); see State v. Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Iowa 1975); State v. Kittelson, 164 N.W.2d 157, 167 (Iowa 1969); State v. Wallace, supra, 259 Iowa at 769, 145 N.W.2d at 618; Moore v. Illinois......