State v. Ubben
Decision Date | 05 May 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 54381,54381 |
Parties | The STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Michael Dean UBBEN, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
McCarthy & Hart, Davenport, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Max A. Gors, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward N. Wehr, County Atty., for appellee.
Charged with the crime of murder, defendant entered a not guilty plea. Trial jury found him guilty in the second degree. From sentence accordingly entered he appeals, challenging admission in evidence of three real or demonstrative exhibits. We affirm.
By information the State alleged Michael Dean Ubben, on January 20, 1970, shot and killed his wife Sandra. Defendant admitted the shooting, but claimed it was accidental.
In course of trial Exhibits 9, 10 and 13, being respectively the victim's coat, culottes and a spent bullet removed from her body, were introduced in evidence over defendant's objection.
The sole error relied on for reversal is, in substance, trial court erred in allowing evidential use of the aforesaid exhibits because the State failed to establish a foundational unbroken chain of possession.
This compels an examination of the factual situation.
Exhibits 9, 10 and 13 were sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory in Washington, D.C., for analysis. Up to that point they were totally unaltered and their chain of possession is not questioned. These exhibits were received by F.B.I. Agent Allison Semmes. His testimony discloses the coat and culottes were tested by him for presence of blood.
F.B.I. Agent James Daniel Beck received these three items from Semmes. Testifying on rebuttal, this witness stated he conducted a chemical and microscopic examination of the coat for gun powder residues, but found none. His inspection of the spent bullet, Exhibit 13, revealed it was fired from a 25 caliber automatic hand weapon as opposed to a revolver. This witness did not say the exhibits were, at time of trial, in substantially the same condition as when inspected by him. Agent Beck might well have testified the articles involved were in the same condition when offered in evidence as they were when received by him, if such is the fact. State v. Grady, 183 N.W.2d 707, 711 (Iowa).
On the other hand Agent Semmes testified: (Emphasis supplied).
Other witnesses testified to the same effect.
Donald Joseph Vieger, Detective Sergeant, Davenport Police Department, found the body, was present at a subsequent autopsy, received Exhibits 9 and 10 from Dr. Ketelaar, and made no changes in them. In course of his testimony Officer Vieger stated: 'Exhibits 9 and 10 are in substantially the same condition now as when they were removed from the body.' (Emphasis supplied).
With regard to the spent bullet, Exhibit 13, Officer Carl Meyer, a detective, Davenport Police Department, being recalled, related he was present when that item was removed from the body of Sandra Ubben. This witness said: (Emphasis supplied).
Moreover, Eugene Sternberg, a Davenport Police Department Lieutenant, custodian of property and evidence, testified he received Exhibits 9 and 10 from Detective Vieger and another officer on February 1, 1970. Mr. Sternberg sent them to the F.B.I. laboratory. He stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lunsford
...with another or been contaminated or tampered with.' See State v. Limerick, 169 N.W.2d 538, 542 (Iowa 1969), and State v. Ubben, 186 N.W.2d 625, 627--628 (Iowa 1971). Marijuana is susceptible to tampering or substitution. State v. Grady, 201 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 1972); Brewer v. United States, ......
-
State v. Tokatlian, s. 54387
...of evidence necessary for admissibility is fully discussed in State v. Grady, 201 N.W.2d 493, 495--496 (Iowa 1972); State v. Ubben, 186 N.W.2d 625, 627--628 (Iowa 1971); and State v. Limerick, 169 N.W.2d 538, 541--542 (Iowa Defendant then introduced his evidence but failed to renew his moti......
-
State v. Battle, 54879
...are admissible. The preliminary proof in this respect is for the court. (Citations).' Like pronouncements are found in State v. Ubben, Iowa, 186 N.W.2d 625, 627, 628; State v. Grady, Iowa, 183 N.W.2d 707, 711; State v. Limerick, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 538, 541, 542, and Here testimony at trial su......
-
State v. Mayes
...be overturned. (Authority.) Bakker, 262 N.W.2d at 543. The facts in the present case are somewhat similar to those in State v. Ubben, 186 N.W.2d 625, 626-27 (Iowa 1971). In Ubben a bullet was removed from a victim's body and admitted over a chain-of-custody objection where several witnesses......