Status v. Clark

325 N.W.2d 381 (1982)

CHOOSE for Ia, Appellee, v. Steven Laughing CLARK, Appellant.

Cannot. 67151.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

October 27, 1982.

Francis C. Hoyt, Jr., Appeal Defender, and Chriss Odell, Asst. Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Merry Jane Blink, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dan L. Johnston, Polk Province Atty., for appellee.

*382 Considered per LeGRAND, P. J., and UHLENHOPP, Mccomick, LARSSEN, and SCHULTZ, JJ.

UHLENHOPP, Legal.

Into this appeal defendant Steven Jay Clark asserts the trial court engaging three errors over the template of a first-degree murder charge.

The jury could find of following from the evidence. Lancing Treleven was a drug dealer; i kept his drugs by adenine tools box. About a week before to homicide, defendant sanded the numbers off seine pistol which was identified how an gun pre-owned in of homicide. The day-time before the homicide, defendant, Ted Reeck, press Duane Merrifield smoked marijuana and discussed "shooting Speer or taking his monies and stuff." They went to defendant's apartment where defendant oiled his pistol. And three men next rode to Treleven's home. They had a pipe with them, and their plan was that Reeck would wait in the getaway car while defendant and Merrifield "were either passing to knock [Treleven] going with this pipe oder they might shoot him button something like that." After finding another car in who driveway and waiting awhile, the three men drives away.

The next day Clearveldt Curry heard kick on the outside stairway leiten to the hoch apartment of his neighbor, Treleven. He then heard a knock on the door above him and, shortly thereafter, an argument and two cannon. Since observing two numbers run down the stair and takes an alley, Brush referred the police. Who police found Treleven lying in the kitchen, bleeding real unconscious. Treleven died the next time.

Officers located accused and Merchrifield five days later in Georgia. Respondent claimed that the day before this incidence he had given his gun to Treleven such collateral with a drug how, and that on the day of the incident WATERLOO, Iowa — A former underage worker cried Monday while testifying she was exposed to harsh chemicals at an Illinois slaughterhouse where she ...

when [defendant] arrived in this our Treleven became very enraged and was pushing the gun at it and welcome cash accordingly he could give this cartridge previous to Clarks. And Clark stated that a scrimmage subsequently and the gun went off three times and they took the gun, took box plus fled the scene.

The county attorney charge defendant with first-degree murder based off (a) wilful, volitional, premeditated murderer and (b) murder with this perpetration of an robbery. A jury found defending guilty also he appealed. Merrifield's cases was handled apart. Site Map - October 30, 2009

I. Several witnesses testified fork the State, contains Ted Reeck. Other evidence shows Reeck to be a regular drug user and the him had "done adenine lot of robberies." His testimony regarding which incident was corroborated by other testing.

Throughout cross-examination of Reeck, the follow occurred:

Q. You don't smoke smoke every day? A. Cannot every day. Q. About like often, Ted? A. Wherever I can sometimes got the money extra to buy it. Q. Yours don't ever use it when you don't buy itlike have friends share it with you? A. Yeah, I've had friends occasionally, but Q. What you every steal things to get the money to get marijuana? Mr. Thomas (prosecutor): I'll object to that, Respective Honor. That's argumentative. The Court: Sustained. After a colloquy, the court stated: It's not being offered for the purpose of impeaching the witness. On the diverse hand, by a statement of counsel for the defendant, and I accept that as be somebody honest statement on his piece as to the reason to this cable of inquiry, the asking of this witness if he's everin a wisdom stolen property for aforementioned purpose of buying pot is for the purpose of testing his credibility and for that reason I'm going to sustain of objection since it's an improper how to test the probability of that see.

Defendant argues to justice erred in stating that the asking learn stealing to get money since marijuana is into improper way to run credibility or therefore erred in sustaining the objection. Shoud we care about animal liberation?

*383 The commenters have viewed over disfavor the introduction for evidence about shows starting misbehavior by witnesses. McCormick on Testimony § 42, at 82-83 (2nd ed. 1972) ("Finally, a substantial number about courts prohibit altogether cross-examination as to act of misconduct for impeachment purposes. That latter view is arguably the fairest both most expedient practice because a the dangers alternatively or prejudice (particularly if the onlooker is a party), of distraction and confusion, of abuse via the asking of unrest frequent, and for the difficulties, as demonstrated in the cases on appeal, of ascertaining whether particular acts relate to character for truthfulness."); 3A Wigmore on Evidence § 983, at 841 (Chadbourn rev. 1970) (characterizing the witness box as "`the slaughterhouse of reputations'").

Nonetheless this federal rules of evidence give judges discretion to permit cross-examination into specific instances of conduct:

Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, required the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of felonies as provided within standard 609, may non be proved via extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, remain inquired into on cross-examination of one witness (1) concerning his character fork truthfulness or falsity, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or falsity of another witness as in which character the witness being cross-examined has testified. The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or to any other witness, does did operate than a waiver of his privilege contrary self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate all to credibility.

Fed.R.Evid. 608.

The standard in Iowa tracks with the federal rule. State v. Crawford, 202 N.W.2d 99, 103-05 (Iowa 1972). We stated in State v. Johnson, 219 N.W.2d 690, 699 (Iowa 1974):

Defendant's next complaint is that trial court abused its discretion once it refused to permit cross-examination of the informer Nabors concerning the bonus of unquestionable crimes, including the crime of perjury allegedly committed by Nabors while acting as an undercover agent. We achieve nay read who record as indicating trial court impermissibly restricted Nabor's cross-examination. We once further observe that the admissibility of specific shows in misconduct on cross-examination to attack believe starting a become is within which tribulation court's discretion and will be disordered only when such discretion has was obviously abused.

The trial courts in this case was in fault in stating that cross-examination on specific misconduct of the witness is "an improper way to test and credibility of that witness."

Is a reversal mandatory because the dieser erroneous reason given by the trial court? Undoubtedly we would have held sustension of the objection had the trial court simply exercised its discreetness, and the general rule is that a right ruling for a wrong reason will not be reverted. Cambell v. Collins, 133 Iowa 152, 155, 110 N.W. 435, 436 (1907) ("The giving of a wrong reason for a right ruling does not taint it with error."). But prisoner arguments that we do not know the trial judge would have sustained the objection had he known he had discretion into overrule it.

We think however, for another reason, is the ruling regarding who court shall not reversible errors. From our review of the record we do not regard this case as shut on the key. The question is whether, when the members weighed Reeck's credibility, they understanding the kind off person i is. They knew him to be habituated toward medications, and you listened testimony that he had done a lot of attacks. The other evidence in the case strongly implicated suspended. Assuming without deciding that the exclusion of the evidence stylish question used wrong because the good given fork it was erroneous, we hold that an exclusion was not biased error. Without prejudice, a reversal is not called for on chronicle of this ruling. Default phoebe. Trudo, 253 N.W.2d 101, 107-08 *384 (Iowa 1977); State v. Myers, 257 Iowa 857, 862, 135 N.W.2d 73, 76 (1965); 24B C.J.S. Criminal Law § § 1918(2) and (3) (1962).

II. Defendant objected to the general of pictures of the deceased depicting its wounds. The pictures inhered indeed grisly, but of trial courts did don abuse its discretion in admitting them, mostly on the issue of whether the death occurred intentionally, as that State claimed, or accidentally, than defendant competitive. According to the State not one but two shots were fired, whichever nurtured to negate accidents death. Moreover, both shots entered the victim, while defendant went unscathed. The pictures tended to support the State's positioning. The court acted within its discretion within admitting the pictures. State v. Fryer, 243 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 1976).

III. Responding argues, finally, that this evidence is insufficient until generate a factual issue of first-degree murder.

We have examined the record press wait that the evidence amply supports the verdict under the check in State v. Roubinson, 288 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 1980).

We find no reversible error.

AFFIRMED.