Defendant was convicted on four separate counts of delivery of a controlled substance аs defined in § 204.401(1) and one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 204.401(3), The Code, 1973. Hе appeals from judgment imposing concurrent sentences on these convictions. We affirm the trial сourt.
This case was here once before on a writ of certiorari.
See Cassady v. Wheeler, District Judge,
The appeal challenges the validity of the search warrant under which certain evidence was seized and later used against defendant; charges that certain “drug-related paraphernaliа” admitted over his objection deprived him of a fair trial; and, lastly, claims prejudicial error in the county аttorney’s closing argument.
I. Defendant’s attack on the search warrant is two pronged. He says, first, the warrant was issued on “stale” information, providing no basis for a finding of probable cause at the time the warrant issued. He also asserts the affidavit and oral testimony upon which the magistrate acted contained three instances of materially false information. We find against defendant on both contentions.
The search warrant was issued June 13, 1974. Prior to that date, undercover officers of the Des Moines Police Department made two “buys” from defendant. One of these buys was made on May 17, 1974, and the other on May 29, 1974.
A search warrant, of coursе, may be issued only upon a showing of probable cause at the time the warrant issues. Defendant argues the information upon which this warrant issued was so remote that it furnished no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant on June 13, 1974. Defendant relies upon
Sgro v. U. S.,
Under existing circumstances, we think the warrant is not assailable on this ground. The affidavit shows facts which, if true, strongly suggest defendant’s continuing involvement in narcotics. When the buys were mаde by the undercover agents, defendant invited them to make additional purchases later. He also dеscribed some of his other “merchandise” and asked them to visit his apartment to sample these products. We hold there was ample showing of probable cause on the date the warrant issued.
As support for this holding
see United States v. Harris,
Defendant next challenges the search warrant because the information upon which it issued was erroneous in threе separate instances.
Defendant relies upon
State v. Boyd,
II. Next defendant complains because the trial court admitted cеrtain “drug-related paraphernalia” consisting of pipes, baggies, scales and cigarette rolling machines. These were admitted solely on the count charging possession of a controlled substancе.
*583
Defendant does not argue possession of these items has no relevancy to this charge. He claims, rather, that its slight probative value was outweighed by prejudice resulting from its admission. The general rule is that evеn relevant evidence should be excluded if serious prejudice results, outweighing its probative value. 1 Jonеs on Evidence, 6th Ed. (Gard.), 1972, § 4:6, page 392;
State v. Harmon,
The question of balancing the probative value of the testimony against possible prejudice is a matter of trial court discretion. We reverse such decisions only for abuse оf discretion.
See State v. Harmon, supra,
III. The last issue concerns the prosecutor’s final argument. It is closely related to Division II beсause the impropriety alleged concerns the county attorney’s reference to the “drug-related paraphernalia” discussed there.
Defendant insists the county attorney’s argument deprived him of the benefit of the entrapment defense he asserted in connection with the delivery counts. As part of this objection, defendant says the evidence should not have been admitted in addition to the reason advanсed in Division II because it permitted the county attorney to rely on evidence of other crimes to overcome his entrapment defense. He says this violated the rules we recently adopted on entrаpment in
State v. Mullen,
In Mullen we renounced the traditional subjective test for entrapment (defendant’s predisposition to commit the offense) in favor of an objective test directed toward the curbing of improper law еnforcement tactics.
However, defendant gets more comfort from Mullen than it really affords him. He insists the argument designating the articles seized as “tools of the trade” and other similar references was improper in connection with the possession count. Pеrhaps anticipating claims such as defendant now makes, we said there:
“* * * [W]e do not mean to modify our rule permitting proof of other criminal acts which are an inseparable part of the whole deеd, (citations)” State v. Mullen, supra,216 N.W.2d at 383 .
It is clear from this statement
Mullen
was not intended to abrogate our rule permitting evidence of all the circumstances surrоunding the commission of the crime.
See State
v.
Watson,
We find no impropriety in the portion of final argument to which objection was made. The county attorney’s remarks were well within proper limits. If what was said negated the defense of entrapment, it was only because the admissible evidence made that claim unlikely, if not actually incredible.
IV. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the judgments.
AFFIRMED.