— Dеfendant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument as defined in section 718.2, Code of Iowa, 1962. He appeals, urging tbe insufficiеncy of tbe evidence of identity beyond a reasonable doubt, error in allowing a witness to testify in violation of an order excluding witnesses, error in giving a flight instruction because not warranted, and error in the alibi instruction.
The State’s theory of the case was defendant, together with others, stole payroll checks of the Colonial Baking Company, endorsed the namе of the payee-employee of a check issued to Merrill R. Albright in the sum of $103.18 and defendant cashed such check at the Hy-Vee Store at East Twenty-sixth and Euclid in Des Moines. The evidence the checks were stolen and the endorsement оn the check in issue was not that of the payee or authorized by him is undenied.
I. The evidence bearing on the identity of defеndant as the man who cashed the check is as follows — A bakery employee testified defendant resembled one оf the men he saw take the bag containing the checks at the bakery. A lady cashier at the Hy-Vee Store testified defеndant was the man who cashed the check. She identified defendant in a “lineup” conducted at the police statiоn. Her direct testimony is positive. Defendant’s attack is directed to her cross-examination wherein she was unable to rеmember in detail certain characteristics of defendant and his dress, her apparent inconsistent statements at thе preliminary hearing and the short time she observed the man when cashing the check, and claimed infirmities in conducting the lineup. One other man testified defendant was the man who cashed one of the stolen payroll checks at his placе of business and an *1348 other testified defendant is the one who attempted to cash one of such cheeks at his plaсe of business. It is sufficient to say of the evidence bearing on the identity of defendant that the cashier at the Hy-Vee Storе was in a position to see defendant at the store, that she did identify him in the lineup. She was in a position to know. The able and thorough cross-examination by defense counsel did no more than raise matters going to the accuracy of the witnеss’s memory and the short time she had to observe the man cashing the check. These are matters for the jury in determining her crеdibility. The evidence of the other witnesses tends to support the cashier. It is a fact of human experience that а person may be recognized and identified by his composite appearance when the observer does nоt remember details of appearance.
The evidence was substantial, and, if believed, was sufficient to- suppоrt a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Estrella,
II. The trial court sustained a motion to exclude the witnеsses and admonished counsel to keep his own witnesses out of the courtroom except when testifying. One of the witnesses the State used in rebuttal was in the courtroom for about five minutes while another witness was testifying. The trial court allowed this witness to testify. He testified defendant cashed one of the stolen Colotaial payroll checks at his gas station on Januаry 17, 1964, at 6 :30 a.m. the morning of the day he cashed the check on which he was being prosecuted.
Defendant contends it was an abuse of discretion to allow the witness to testify after violating the exclusionary rule and because such evidence showed another crime and was impeachment testimony as well as showing a course of conduct. He concedes ordinarily allowing such a witness to testify is discretionary.
In this case the record discloses the witness was in the courtroom fоr about five minutes to determine whether the defendant was the man who cashed the check at his station. The testimony he hеard could not have influenced his testimony in anyway. The assistant county attorney prosecuting the case was unaware of *1349 bis presence and in fact did not know at that time such person would be called as a witness.
The reason for the еxclusionary rule is, as pointed out in In re Will of Smith,
That the witness could properly testify to a common plan or identity even though suсh testimony discloses another crime is well established. The question is one of relevancy, if such evidence properly supports an issue in the case it is admissible. State v. Schlak,
The witness’s testimony was only impeachment testimony in the sense it was contradictory of defendant’s testimony. The State’s whole case was such.
III. Defendant’s next contention the flight instruction was nоt warranted by the evidence is wholly without merit. The record shows defendant while in jail awaiting trial escaped and within a few dаys was again apprehended. Defendant testified he escaped and fled because he was afraid he would bе charged as a habitual criminal.
The reason for flight by one in custody is a question for the jury. State v. Waltz,
IY. Defendant’s last contention is the alibi instruction as given was erroneous. He urges us to reсonsider our ruling in State v. Stump,
*1350 ' ' A majority of tbе members of this court are still of the view such evidence warrants the giving of such instruction and the instruction as given is correct. For a complete discussion of the question see State v. Stump, supra. — Affirmed.