State v. Traywick, No. 89-1266

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtLARSON
Citation468 N.W.2d 452
Docket NumberNo. 89-1266
Decision Date17 April 1991
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Harold L. TRAYWICK, Appellant.

Page 452

468 N.W.2d 452
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Harold L. TRAYWICK, Appellant.
No. 89-1266.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 17, 1991.

Page 453

Raymond E. Rogers, Appellate Defender, and Shari Barron, Asst. Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Ann E. Brenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., William E. Davis, County Atty., and James D. Hoffman, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, SCHULTZ, SNELL, and ANDREASEN, JJ.

LARSON, Justice.

Harold Traywick was convicted of two counts of burglary under Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.5 (1989). He appealed,

Page 454

claiming error in (1) admitting illegally seized evidence; (2) excluding, on hearsay grounds, certain out-of-court statements; and (3) denying him a new trial on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals reversed on the hearsay issue and ordered a new trial. The State applied for further review. We vacate the court of appeals decision and affirm the district court.

The burglaries involved two houses in rural Scott County. One of the houses was owned by Arthur Schaeffer, whose brother-in-law, Richard Cavanaugh, lived nearby. Cavanaugh saw a car at the Schaeffer residence. The car left and drove past Cavanaugh. The car backed up, and the driver asked Cavanaugh for directions to Interstate 80. Schaeffer did not recognize the driver. After getting directions, the driver left but did not head for Interstate 80. Instead, he returned to the Schaeffer residence and pulled into the driveway.

Later that afternoon, Schaeffer called Cavanaugh and told him that his house had been burglarized. Cavanaugh told Schaeffer about the stranger in the car and told him he had written down the car's license number. The incident was reported to the police, who learned that the car belonged to Traywick's wife. Traywick was known by the police to have a history of burglaries. Based on these facts, the officers looked for Traywick's car, stopped it, and searched it. The search revealed several items which had been stolen from the homes.

I. The Search and Seizure Issue.

Traywick argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the search of his car because the officers lacked sufficient grounds to stop him. See State v. Lamp, 322 N.W.2d 48, 51 (Iowa 1982) (quoting State v. Aschenbrenner, 289 N.W.2d 618, 619 (Iowa 1980) (emphasis added) (state must show that officers had "specific and articulable cause to support a reasonable belief that criminal activity MAY have occurred").

Traywick, however, has waived this issue by failing to raise it in the district court. His claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, by which he seeks to excuse this failure, is more appropriately raised in a postconviction proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 663A. See State v. Slayton, 417 N.W.2d 432, 436 (Iowa 1987).

II. The "Hearsay" Issue.

Traywick's trial was severed from that of his alleged accomplice, Michael Tolbert. During Traywick's trial, his attorney attempted to use the testimony of Tolbert's girlfriend, Alberta Wells, to relate two conversations she had with Tolbert. The State's hearsay objections were sustained, and Traywick made an offer of proof. According to this offer, Wells would testify that Tolbert called her after his arrest and told her to "get rid of the rings." Traywick also attempted to use Wells to testify that, during a visit with Tolbert at the jail, he told her that "Harold [Traywick] wasn't with him." The court rejected both offers of proof. Traywick contends this was error because they were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. See Iowa R.Evid. 801(c).

Regarding the out-of-court statement by Tolbert that Traywick "wasn't there," this is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • State v. Huser, No. 14-0277
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 5, 2017
    ...according to Huser, the State cannot show that the erroneous exclusion of evidence did not result in prejudice. See State v. Traywick , 468 N.W.2d 452, 454–55 (Iowa 1991).2 In his appellate briefing, however, Huser does not address the question of whether the admission of Woolheater's state......
  • Spears v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., No. M2008-00842-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • July 17, 2009
    ...the insurer for failing to pay an insurance claim does not constitute cooperation under the terms of the policy. See, e.g., Watson, 468 N.W.2d at 452 (holding that an insured's belated offer to answer questions under oath were too late to be considered compliance with the insurance policy);......
  • State Of Iowa v. Hanes, No. 08-1231.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 2010
    ...is of a constitutional dimension, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not result in prejudice. State v. Traywick, 468 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Iowa 1991). Courts have applied this standard to errors of a constitutional dimension in jury instructions. 1 See Rose v. Clark, 478......
  • State v. Walker, No. 18-0457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 22, 2019
    ...(Iowa 1998) ("Not all errors require reversal. To warrant reversal the error must have prejudiced the defendant."); State v. Traywick , 468 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 1991) ("When an alleged error is not of constitutional magnitude, ‘the test of prejudice [for harmless error] is whether it suffi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • State v. Huser, No. 14-0277
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 5, 2017
    ...according to Huser, the State cannot show that the erroneous exclusion of evidence did not result in prejudice. See State v. Traywick , 468 N.W.2d 452, 454–55 (Iowa 1991).2 In his appellate briefing, however, Huser does not address the question of whether the admission of Woolheater's state......
  • Spears v. Tennessee Farmers Mut. Ins. Co., No. M2008-00842-COA-R3-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • July 17, 2009
    ...the insurer for failing to pay an insurance claim does not constitute cooperation under the terms of the policy. See, e.g., Watson, 468 N.W.2d at 452 (holding that an insured's belated offer to answer questions under oath were too late to be considered compliance with the insurance policy);......
  • State Of Iowa v. Hanes, No. 08-1231.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 2010
    ...is of a constitutional dimension, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not result in prejudice. State v. Traywick, 468 N.W.2d 452, 455 (Iowa 1991). Courts have applied this standard to errors of a constitutional dimension in jury instructions. 1 See Rose v. Clark, 478......
  • State v. Walker, No. 18-0457
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 22, 2019
    ...(Iowa 1998) ("Not all errors require reversal. To warrant reversal the error must have prejudiced the defendant."); State v. Traywick , 468 N.W.2d 452, 454 (Iowa 1991) ("When an alleged error is not of constitutional magnitude, ‘the test of prejudice [for harmless error] is whether it suffi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT