State v. Sparks, 58490
| Decision Date | 18 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 58490,58490 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James Allan SPARKS, Appellant. |
Robert M. Benton, of Rex Darrah Law Office, Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. McGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ray A. Fenton, County Atty., for appellee.
Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for delivery of amphetamines in violation of § 204.401(1), The Code. The sole question presented is whether he was denied a fair trial by trial court rulings which permitted the prosecutor to ask him on cross-examination about the source of the drugs he admitted he delivered. We affirm the trial court because we do not find he was denied a fair trial.
Defendant's theory of defense was entrapment. He testified at length on direct examination about his close relationship with the government's agent. He emphasized the agent's blandishments, ingratiating conduct, and persistence in asking him to obtain drugs. He added color to this portrait of the agent's aggressiveness by claiming unfamiliarity with drug trafficking and uncertainty about his ability to carry out the requested transaction. This is illustrated by part of his testimony on direct examination:
Q. Could you tell me what it was that happened between you and Mr. Porter that got you into that car that night? A. He called me up and wanted something.
Q. He called you up and wanted some what? A. Tablets. He just said he wanted some tablets.
Q. And he had done this many times before? A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. What was your answer to him that night? A. Told him I could look into it, but, 'I am not sure,' because, I don't know, I didn't know.
Q. Go ahead and speak up, Jim. You didn't know--A. Where nothing was at, because I don't--You know, I don't even--
Q. So you told him that you would give him a call back and look around; is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And you did so? A. Yes.
Later in his testimony on direct examination this exchange occurred:
Q. What happened then? A. He started talking, and I told him to go over to Center Street, that there might be somebody over there that might have something, some pills. I didn't know.
Q. And did they ask--What happened after that? A. We went over to Center Street.
Q. And you were with him? A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct? A. Yes, and he gave me the money and I went inside and I got one baggie and took him out and he opened it and tasted one, and said he would like the other bag.
Q. Yes? A. So I went in and got the other baggie for him.
On cross-examination the assistant county attorney asked defendant whom he got the pills from. Defense counsel objected on the ground of relevancy, and the objection was overruled. Defendant said the man's name was John but he could not remember his last name. He asserted this was the first time he had ever been to that place. When asked whom he had called to find out who might have pills, he first said he did not recall, then over unsuccessful defense objection on the grounds of relevancy and scope of cross-examination identified the man he called as 'Frank'. He said he was not sure but thought his last name was Aldrich. Later he testified the purchase had to be made before 2:00 p.m. because he guessed that is when John went to work. When asked where John worked he was required to answer over another objection based upon relevancy. He identified a bar where he believed John worked.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his objections to these questions. All objections raised an issue of relevancy and one was addressed to the scope of cross-examination.
The basic test of relevancy is whether the evidence offered would render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Mathias, 216 N.W.2d 319, 322 (Iowa 1974). In this case, assuming without deciding the evidence was not necessary to prove the fact of delivery, State v. Ostrand, 219 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa 1974), it was nevertheless probative in refuting defendant's entrapment defense. Although we are committed to the objective test of entrapment, State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa 1974), this does not render the circumstances surrounding the defendant's participation in the drug transaction irrelevant. As pointed out in Mullen:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mark
...must be sufficiently specific to alert the court to the objector's theory of undue prejudice." We then held, in State v. Sparks, 238 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 1976), that a relevancy objection is not sufficient to authorize on appeal the allegation of undue prejudice. Therefore, Mark's contenti......
-
State v. Fowler
...based issue now raised on appeal. Generally, an assignment of error first urged on appeal is not entertained. See State v. Sparks, 238 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 1976); State v. Harmon, 238 N.W.2d 139, 143 (Iowa 1976); State v. Fields, 223 N.W.2d 197, 198 (Iowa 1975); State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d......
-
State v. Gibb
...in the jury's presence, nor have we found any. The question asked was proper cross-examination. See id. at 186; see State v. Sparks, 238 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 1976). Trial court had a right to expect defendant to respond to his direction. In any event, the jury had a right to draw an infere......
-
State v. Groscost
...is whether the evidence offered would render the desired inference more probable than it would be without the evidence." State v. Sparks, 238 N.W.2d 777, 779 (Iowa 1976). Even if defendant's investigator had heard the supplier's name, tracked down the individual mentioned, and produced him ......