State v. Williams, 59643
| Decision Date | 29 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59643,59643 |
| Citation | 256 N.W.2d 207 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Arlethia WILLIAMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Cahill, Johnston, Poula & Goety by Emmit J. George, Jr., Iowa City, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard H. Doyle, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Eugene J. Kopecky, Linn County Atty., for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C. J., and MASON, LeGRAND, REES, and UHLENHOPP, JJ.
This appeal involves three issues which arose in a prosecution for soliciting for prostitution under § 724.2, Code 1975.
I. Defendant Arlethia Williams objected at trial to testimony by Detective Douglas Hansel about a tip he received prior to the events in question which subsequently led to those events and to the prosecution. This testimony was admissible under State v. Rush, 242 N.W.2d 313, 319 (Iowa) (). No error appears.
II. Detective Hansel talked with defendant on the telephone and taped the conversation. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict of guilty, the jury could find that defendant solicited in that conversation (as well as in a motel room where she then met with Hansel). The tape was sufficiently clear to reveal the substance of the conversation, and Hansel adequately identified the tape at the trial.
Defendant objected to the playing of the tape at trial, mainly on the basis of hearsay. She argues here that it does not qualify as a business record which would be admissible under the hearsay exception in § 622.28 of the Code.
The contents of the tape were admissible quite apart from the business record exception on two bases. One is that the tape was used to prove the solicitation itself, not to prove the truth of the statements made. State v. Leonard, 243 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa); State v. Rush supra; State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa). Second, if the tape had been used to prove the truth of the statements made it would be admissible as an admission, since it contained defendant's own conversation. 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 436 at 494, § 598 at 653; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 731 at 1046. We find no error.
III. Defendant contends that in Instruction 11 the trial court erroneously intermixed the objective and subjective tests of entrapment, contrary to State v. Mullen, 216 N.W.2d 375 (Iowa). See also State v. Leins, 234 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa). The State strenuously claims the issue is moot because as a matter of law entrapment does not appear.
The portion of the instruction defendant now relies on is this:
It is not entrapment for the law enforcement officer to pretend to be someone else, or to conceal his identity.
If you should find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that before anything at all occurred respecting the alleged offense involved in this case, the defendant was ready and willing to commit the crime charged whenever opportunity was offered, and the law enforcement officer merely offered the opportunity, then you should find that the defendant is not a victim of entrapment.
Defendant's exception to this instruction at trial, before the court read the instructions to the jury, was this:
My second exception is to jury Instruction No. 11 with regard to entrapment. I would request here again the Court use the uniform instruction No. 501.21 rather than the instruction that's here because I think that this instruction is a little suggestive. There is a statement here with regard to law enforcement officers and their pretending to be someone else or concealing their identity. I would recommend that that sentence be taken out and included in another instruction all together because I think that within the entrapment instruction almost indicates that there is no such thing as entrapment.
When a defendant undertakes to state an objection to an instruction, he is bound by the objection he makes. State v. Buchanan, 207 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...of its prejudicial impact. As throwing some light on this issue, see State v. Odem, 322 N.W.2d 43, 47 (Iowa 1982); State v. Williams, 256 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Iowa 1977); State v. McDonald, 190 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 1971); State v. Olson, 260 Iowa 311, 318-19, 149 N.W.2d 132, 136 (1967); 29 Am.......
-
State v. Odem, 67135
...consciousness of guilt. It is basic that a party may place into evidence the admissions made by a party-opponent. See State v. Williams, 256 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Iowa 1977); Vine Street Corp. v. City of Council Bluffs, 220 N.W.2d 860, 863 (Iowa 1974). An admission may be implied by conduct subs......
-
State v. Fisher, 61227
...regard. We have held that a party is bound by the substance of an objection or exception to instructions made at trial, State v. Williams, 256 N.W.2d 207, 209 (Iowa 1977), and that an objection to an instruction must be of sufficient clarity and specificity to alert the trial court to the p......
-
State v. Doughty
...in defendant's arrest." The fact of a complaint is admissible to explain a third party's actions taken in response. See State v. Williams, 256 N.W.2d 207, 208 (Iowa 1977); State v. Rush, 242 N.W.2d 313, 319 (Iowa 1976); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748-49 (Iowa 1975); Crane v. Cedar Rap......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Whitaker , 79 A.3d 795 (R.I., 2013), §7.400 State v. Wiggins , 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App. 2000), §§7.300, 7.400 State v. Williams , 256 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1977), §36.303 State v. Williams , 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978), §45.200 State v. Williams , 838 A.2d 214, 81 Conn. App. 1 (2004), §6.300 Stat......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Whitaker , 79 A.3d 795 (R.I., 2013), §7.400 State v. Wiggins , 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App. 2000), §§7.300, 7.400 State v. Williams , 256 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1977), §36.303 State v. Williams , 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978), §45.200 State v. Williams , 838 A.2d 214, 81 Conn. App. 1 (2004), §6.300 Stat......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Whitaker , 79 A.3d 795 (R.I., 2013), §7.400 State v. Wiggins , 526 S.E.2d 207 (N.C.App. 2000), §§7.300, 7.400 State v. Williams , 256 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1977), §36.303 State v. Williams , 388 A.2d 500 (Me. 1978), §45.200 State v. Williams , 838 A.2d 214, 81 Conn. App. 1 (2004), §6.300 B-63......
-
On-Site Recordings
...admissions and inconsistent statements. See Application to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena 597 N.Y.S.2d 557 (Sup. Ct. 1993); State v. Williams, 256 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1977) [admissions]; Stevenson v. State, 619 A.2d 155 (Md.App. 1993); Zawistowski v. Kissinger, 466 N.W.2d 664 (Wis.Ct.App. 1991) [in......