State v. Martin

IS, 1967, findings September after his back The commissioner’s On worse, compensation in gotten resulting was fact his denial of had claimant saw and Miller, in support have substantial the record. thereafter treated Dr. Dennis L. We and have basis orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed who are bound them no an interfere to with his decision. repaired the herniated and later it sur- disc previously As gically. noted Dr. Miller appropriate final note seems in this One in lifting testified claimant’s work for de- appears case. in the record No reason fendant be a cause of herniated could delay years of more than three lifting disc. said is a cause of such a He appeal time in dis of submission of the majority great condition in the of cases but court court trict until the decision of the acknowledge there could be other causes. impossible imagine filed. It is was cir kind justify cumstances which would The industrial Dr. commissioner found delay in other kind of case. testimony possible Miller’s causal impor-' The issues all cases are of vital connection insufficient parties tance and are entitled to be compensation, “particularly award in view put expedi to rest after fair and but heavy episode full work and a traumatic tious deliberation. The work outside of He claim- issues the work.” concluded compensation grave men’s cases have con prove ant did not sustain his burden to sequences in workingmen the lives of the impairment causally back related to why legislature affected. This is de employment. signed system accomplish intended to thus commissioner made reasoned speedy, summary, informal untechnical findings required by of fact as recent our justice. Publishing Polson v. Meredith decision in v. Firestone Tire and Catalfo Company, supra, N.W.2d, at 526. We Co., Rubber (Iowa 1973), deplore delay present in the case. where we held his decisions must show We find reversible upon, applied, “evidence no error. relied standards reasoning reaching used in conclusions Affirmed. of fact and law.” Id. 510. We do not believe this is a case Langford

like v. Kellar Excavating & Inc.,

Grading, 191 N.W.2d 667

1971), where the commissioner found med testimony disability

ical was work-con nected recovery to be true but denied Iowa, Appellee, STATE of through application of an erroneous stand proximate present ard of cause. The case MARTIN, bound rule Giere Aase Hau Charles Reno William a/k/a Gottfried, Appellant. Homes, Inc., gen 146 N.W. expert 2d 911 where we (1966), observed No. 55207. testimony that a condition could be causal Supreme Court of Iowa. ly employment, related to claimant’s al April 24, 1974. though support alone sufficient finding connection, may of causal be cou

pled nonexpert testimony with tending to

show causation and thus be sufficient However,

sustain an award. such evidence compel

does not as a award matter of

law. for the fact finder determine probative

its ultimate value.- veracity. This truth related

those overruled. motion was interposed objections were Like during stages appropriate such Ultimately again overruled. the trial he cross-examination, admitted Martin several previously convicted had been prior felonies. attorney also endeavored

Defendant’s influence was under prove Martin robbery. the aforesaid time of narcotics at attempts were several support thereof In evidence, via opinion to introduce made a claimed asked of questions hypothetical upon had drugs effect expert, as to the in- Objections thereto because people. quali- Roehrick, absence of P. Moines, adequate Des foundation ap- for John were pellant. the witness part of on the fications sustained. Turner, Richard Atty. Gen., Raymond C. Sullins, Atty. Gen., Fenton,

W. Asst. Ray here support of a reversal In County Michael, Atty., and Hansen, Asst. allowing asserts, trial court erred County Atty., appellee. defend- prosecution cross-examination un- felony prior convictions ant Considered en banc. veracity, related truth testi- permit introduction refusing RAWLINGS, Justice. expert witness. mony by a defense called Defendant, Martin, Charles Reno a/k/a posed relates question first I. The Gottfried, appeals William judgment from aof impeachment felony convictions prior jury finding verdict guilty him of rob- defendant-witness. bery with aggravation in violation of The felony prior convictions effect The 711.1, Code Sections 711.2. re-We long been has rights upon, testimonial verse. legal courts to both of concern matter April 30, 1971, gun point robbery was scholars. perpetrated Safeway Super at the Market in- deemed person was law a At common store, East 14th and University in Des pre- had if he or she competent testify Moines. an hour police About later the ar- termed what was viously been convicted rested posses- Martin. He then had Wigmore on crime”. See an “infamous sion a sack of money identified having as ed.); Mc- (3d Evidence, 519-520 §§ store, come from pistol. By said and a in- Evidence, (1954). at 89 Cormick on formation defendant was accused Drake L.Rev. generally 12 above stated offense. later abolished rule was above Prior to trial defense counsel moved for every state. See statutory enactments an order in limine which the State 622.1, 622.3. Code §§ prohibited would making any be in- bod-, regard- Martin presence-of-jury inquiry of however, legislative doing, In so felony convictions, except ing his statutes enacted jurisdictions in most ies comparable to our Code 622.17 which II. conceded un- the existent says: interrogated A restricted impeach- conviction previous felony. view, conviction for No ment which is reference above proof competent, made, other is except subjected the record has been to more than thereof.” minimal criticism. inceptionally We note this censorious ob-

This Act statutorily constitutes a Evidence, servation in McCormick on exception imposed to the basic rule that at 93-94: showing the commission of crimes than other with one accused sharpest prejudicial “The and most im- ordinarily stands charged admissible. part practice of the impeachment Wright, * * * partic- one (Iowa 1971). witness, type ular namely, the accused in a criminal case who the elects to take Furthermore, made com stand. If the is accused forced to admit petent by quoted the above the statute is for past convictions, that he has a ‘record’ of credibility sole impugning the particularly if they are for crimes simi- States, aof witness. See Brown v. United trial, lar to the one on danger ob- the is 220, U.S.App.D.C. 242, 125 370 F.2d 244 jury, despite instructions, the vious that Milford, 590, (1966); State v. 186 N.W.2d give past will more to heed the convic- (Iowa 1971); Anderson, 593 v. State 159 tions as evidence that the accused is the 809, (Iowa 812 1968); N.W.2d v. Gaskill kind of man the who would commit Gahman, 891, 896, 255 124 Iowa N.W.2d on charge, crime or even that ought he Underwood, 533 State (1968); v. 248 Iowa put away to without too much con- 443, 445-446, (1957); 80 41 N.W.2d 730 present guilt, they cern with than will to 325 (1956). L.Rev. legitimate its bearing accused, places This the who has a ‘rec- the hand this On other court has not ord’ but who thinks he to impeach- has defense heretofore held the testimonial present charge, grievous dilem- ment allowable is under 622.17 restricted stays ma. If he dishonesty, off the stand his silence to convictions involving prompt jury alone will veracity, truth or as him nor limited to time to believe guilty. testify, If he elects his to thereof. provable ‘record’ impeach becomes to change in that Absence of him, again and this is likely to doom his probably due to the fact related error Where jus- defense. does the balance of instances, not, has in most been heretofore prosecutors say tice lie? Most would preserved appellate g., review. See for e. with much force it that would be unfair 679, Shipp, v. 184 N.W.2d 680 permit appear accused to as a wit- 1971); Schatterman, v. 171 N.W.2d life, ness blameless argument and this 890, Anderson, (Iowa 1969); 896 generally has prevailed. in England But at N.W.2d 812-813. Pennsylvania and in the accused who shielded, takes stand under certain circumstances, inquiry proof satisfied, however, in We are stantly assigned adequately pre was error misconduct or crime by impeach. served for consideration court. when Similarly offered 445, generally 435, provides Drake L.Rev. Uniform Rule if See the ac- State, (1973). Griggs 457-469 supporting cused does offer evidence 795, 1972); prosecution P.2d own (Alaska credibility cf. State shall 765, Byrnes, 767, allowed, 260 Iowa not be N.W.2d on cross-examination or otherwise, prove impeachment attorney manslaughter. Defendant’s purposes his or conviction commission per- promptly objected, that to first renewal balance it seems crime. On pre- mit, do, noted provisions grounds accused advanced the above as these one motion, story (1) without incur- trial limine then because of crime to tell overwhelming prejudice likely constitute course of ring question did not past impeachment; go to disclosing (2) convic- conduct it did not ensue from tions, expedi- veracity; designed just, (3) truth and is more humane against practice.” improperly prejudice jury de- prevailing ent solution than the ; and ir- fendant and it was immaterial States, Drew United generally objection relevant. The was overruled (1964); U.S.App.D.C. 331 F.2d thereupon stated he had been 447-448, Underwood, at burglary, voluntary man- convicted of Santiago, slaughter, other kidnapping and some . (1971); Haw. 659-662 492 P.2d crimes. Farrar, Mich.App. People objection jury given, By n. 20 cf. instructions States, again judgment 336 U.S. on motion in arrest Krulewitch v. United trial, re- 93 L.Ed. 790 and for a defense counsel new S.Ct. foregoing objections regarding opinion); Michelson United asserted the (concurring 469, 479-481, 69 S.Ct. truth and 335 U.S. convictions not related to 220-221, L. (1948); 41 Iowa veracity. 93 L.Ed. 168 But see McGautha v.

Rev. 337-345. however, maintains, initially 1454, California, 183,215, 91 S.Ct. U.S. prosecutorial inquiry was controverted 1471, Spencer v. (1971); 28 L.Ed.2d 711 proper prior hold- Code 622.17 under our 560-565, Texas, 554, of 385 U.S. ings. 652-654, 648, (1967); L.Ed.2d 606 S.Ct. Voltenburg, 260 Iowa v. Van resolving In that issue we first address (1967); Common impeachment to the nature of an ourselves Bighum, 452 Pa. 307 A.2d wealth prior felony related conviction. 260-262 In Chief Warren Justice specifics of brings III. That us to Burger, Ap- while on the Court D.C. of question appeal. first raised on this peals, aptly stated in Gordon v. United States, U.S.App.D.C. 343, F.2d observed, trial, previously de- Prior to (1967): precluded fense counsel moved the in offering evidence course legitimate pur- to the look “\W]e defendant’s prosecution (1) is, course, pose impeachment which a sim- felony convictions as to the same or show that the accused who takes not to charge, any other conviction ilar or person rather to stand is ‘bad’ but veracity. This mo- involving truth di- backgroicnd show which bear facts tion was overruled. jurors to believe rectly ought on whether conflicting him rather than other and on his defendant testified During trial experi- In common human witnesses. response inquiry in behalf and own deceit, fraud, cheating, ence acts of or had stated he been on direct examination example, universally stealing, for are re- felony. previously of a Noticea- convicted garded as conduct which reflects ad- bly deny having ever been so he did not versely honesty integrity. man’s on a convicted. hand, Acts of violence on the other temper, from a county which result short attor- cross-examination On nature, provocation, extreme had ever combative ney inquired whether defendant causes, burglary voluntary generally or have little or other been convicted bearing honesty no direct on ing. generally veraci- Bordon v. United ty. A States, ‘rule thumb’ thus supra; Anderson, should be Ashton v. convictions on which rest dishonest N.E.2d (Ind.1972); 211-217 McIntosh credibility conduct relate to Company, whereas v. Pittsburgh Railways 432 Pa. those or gen- violent assaultive crimes A .2d Rule erally not; violations, do traffic ; how- Uniform Rules of Evidence ever, serious, are in the same category.” Rule American Law Institute Model (Emphasis supplied). Code Ladd, of Evidence (1942); M. Credibility Trends, Tests —Current 89 U. Wigmore Evidence, See also 3A Pa.L.Rev. 174-191 (1940). (Chadbourn rev.); IS So.Dak.L.Rev. 166-169 (1970). are also VI.We satisfied Code 622.- 17, quoted above, permissive is couched IV, Next to be is considered the re- not mandatory terms. moteness in any felony time of upon relied to undermine the truth and ve- nothing “There is statute itself racity of a witness. appears to confer a cross-ex again Here Gordon v. United su- aminer an absolute in all right circum pra, play. point comes into is this fur- On inquire stances of a witness as to ther statement Burger, 383 F.2d Justice prior felony provision convictions. at 940: part chapter of the code on evidence. presupposes Our law evidence exer “The nearness or remoteness of the judicial cise of discretion accordance conviction is also a factor of no small recognized admissibility with standards importance. Even involving one fraud authority category whether for or stealing, example, if it occurred statutory not. This in evidence or long before and has been followed reputation bearing upon cludes legally life, blameless generally should probability nonprobability guilt ground excluded of remoteness.” Sill, v. 199 State N.W. See Hackett, 493, See State v. 200 N.W.2d 47, Hobbs, 2d 1972); 49 v. (Iowa State (Iowa 497-498 1972) (concurring opinion); 1969), and cita (Iowa 172 268 N.W.2d Hardesty, 382, 395-396, State v. 261 Iowa suggest tions. would be anomalous to It 153 (1967) (concurring opin N.W.2d 464 impeachment subject interposition is ion) ; McCumber, State v. 1382, 202 judicial except where inter discretion 1385, 212 (1927); N.W. 137 v. Dick State rogation felony as to convictions is son, 17, 24, 225 (1925); N.W. involved. States, U.S.App.D.C. Stevens v. United 370 F.2d (1966); 486-487 3A split authority a among “There is Evidence, Wigmore (Chad 927-928 jurisdictions with statutes §§ similar which ; Proposed rev.) bourn Rules of Evidence have decided The better rea issue. for Magistrates, United States Courts and soned cases have such statutes concluded 609, Advisory Note, Rule Committee’s sub place admissibility as the discretion (b); Evidence, 29 Am.Jur.2d, division prior felony evidence of convictions in 253; 31A Evidence 159. judge rather than cross-examin C.J.S. er. See Luck United v. U.S. V. It is to us relatively self-evident the App.D.C. 151, (1965); 348 F.2d 763 unlimited cross-examination witness Palumbo, United v. 401 F.2d 270 States prior felony convictions, partic- as to more (2d denied, 1968), cert. 394 U.S. Cir. accused, ularly an fraught is with inequi- S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 480 ties. People Montgomery, v. 47 Ill.2d any therapeutic Fortunately action does 268 N.E.2d 695 This view conjectural entail not undertak- is new rooted in the doctrine evidence substantially prejudice outweigh probative admissi does not must value to be have prior felony pre probative will not be value of such ble, legislature conviction, taking into such factors established a intend account sumed to have rule conviction, its prerogative (b) nature of the judicial ed undermine the as (a) veracity, age, its its bearing (c) (d) that determination. making Judicial operate propensity improperly there to influence the discretion probative jurors. This an assessment of minds of value.

judicial required in to im is efforts role credibility showing prior peach however, noted, pro our must be Hackett, v. 200 N. nouncement, convictions.” State nor supra, neither relates to opinion). (concurring W.2d rules places limitation on established prior convictions permit States, supra; v. See also United Stevens Fetters, N.W. delineated Crawford, 202 103-105 N.W.2d 1972) and (Iowa 2d 91-92 Farrar, (Iowa People 1972); 193 N.W. Neither at 639-642. Wright, 191 N.W.2d 366-370; Wilson, People Misc. 2d at Chapter 747 habitu applicable is it to Code (S.Ct. 2d 338-340 347 N.Y.S.2d Furthermore, we proceedings. al criminal 1973). permitting hereby modify our rule do Also, unavoidably as to the inter- are an proof VII. acts which of other criminal relevancy Wig- part woven matter of see 3A deed. inseparable of the whole Evidence, rev.). (Iowa (Chadbourn Lyons, more on N.W.2d in Also, by exclusion, the way of 1973). theory impeachment under this not limit a defendant’s holding stant does qualities is that the moral of wit- section court, right, decisions of under ness, accused, including an can throw some place good for the in issue character truthfulness, probability light on the of his charged. in an offense traits involved speaks they as he will influence because Buckner, 214 him to be sincere or reverse. Since Hobbs, 1974); State (Iowa present being used to character thus 1969). light probability speaking on the throw necessary present the truth it is that the additionally It is to be understood proved. character be Because character adopted the standard here is not retroac into court and brought cannot be shown tively applicable. applied only It will be jury or fact at trier of the moment case; present cases which speaks necessary, pur- for the filing trial commences on or after the of pose demonstrating of the witness’ charac- opinion;, (3) this and cases tried before speaks ter for as he from the truthfulness filing opinion in the of this which error stand, to his at a go back to character properly preserved, , has and which been prior purpose only in- For this such time. appeal to this at (a) pending are on court stances as tend show lack of truthful- opinion, filing (b) the time of of this or disposition example, forgery, ness or —for may appealed filing of this be after the cheating and and the like—are relevant Gorham, opinion. 206 See State v. N.W.2d material. Jensen, 1973); 189 State v. 1971). 924 (Iowa N.W.2d we now foregoing of the Mindful hold, cred attacking for the of the Dealing further with the above VIII. witness, ibility any including of an accused pronouncement standard is this guiding 622.17, he has under evidence Code § v. 383 F.2d at 940- Gordon United previously been convicted of 941: felony involved only admissible if the statement, dishonesty special false and the “A and even more difficult prior judge danger problem determines of unfair arises conviction when substantially is for the same same convict innocent man because of Schader, conduct for which the accused is on bad (People supra, record.’ multiple p. 774, trial. convictions of Cal.Rptr. p. Where Cal.2d at at shown, kinds can strong p. various rea- 849). 457 P.2d at ‘Probative value’ is complex. sons arise for excluding those which are more Its chief constituents are for the same crime because the inevi- materiality, necessity. relevance pressure lay jurors (People Thus, table Schader, believe supra.) how he did it he did probably ‘probative ‘if before proffered much value’ evi so this As general guide, time.’ those depends upon dence has the extent convictions which are for the same crime prove which it by logic tends to an issue sparingly; should be admitted one solu- (degree reasonable inference rele might tion well be that ex- importance discretion be vancy), the the issue impeachment by way ercised to limit the (degree case materiality), and the ne of a single similar crime to a cessity conviction proving the issue means of only and then in- when the circumstances particular piece (degree evidence disclosure, dicate strong reasons for necessity). Schader, (People su where the directly pra, conviction relates p. Cal.Rptr. Cal.2d veracity. 841.) 457 P.2d “ * * * course, “Of many there are other fac- prior That may tors that in deciding be relevant was based on conduct the same or sub whether or not to exclude convic- stantially presently similar to that particular tions in a case.” charged against admissibility militates danger because it enhances Concord, also prejudice. greater of undue There is 474-475, 154 (1915). N.W. 763 possibility jury that the will de convict enlightenment Further gleaned charged fendant of the offense because People Delgado, this discussion in he committed same or a similar of Cal.App.3d 242, 248-249, Cal.Rptr. past. fense The fourth (Id.) 399, 404-405 (1973): Beagle, factor or factors mentioned in the likelihood that the defendant will duty imposed upon “The the trial court testify importance elect not to * * * is, upon timely request, testimony, ‘danger to the relate both weigh ‘probative against ‘prob value’ prejudice’ ‘necessity’ of undue and to the ability prejudice’ ... of undue ‘probative (Cf. constituent of value’. ‘probative to exclude only when People pp. Beagle, supra, 6 Cal.3d at substantially value is outweighed , Cal.Rptr. 1.).” 492 P.2d 453-454 danger substantial of undue People Sanders, Mich.App. prejudice.’ correctly understand and To apply guidelines Beagle set forth [People Beagle, Cal. Cal.3d Rptr. 313, 1], necessary 492 P.2d it As guideline an additional is sug understand what is meant the terms should, proper gested trial courts mo ‘probative value’ ‘danger and of undue tion, pretrial pur grant hearing a for the prejudice’. by the enlightened We are pose eliciting and relevant weighing discussion of the of these terms meaning potential factors with witness People Schader, in Cal.2d 71 impeachment by prior felony show of a

774-775, Cal.Rptr. 457 80 P.2d 841. People Wilson, conviction. See N. 347 ‘Danger of easier prejudice’ undue is the at Y.S.2d 340. of the two to understand. In context trial, of a in criminal it refers to a likeli course develop, may otherwise It jury impeaching hood ‘that a and astray trial, will be led a 622.17 Code § 544 Frese, 292-295,

technique employed. is to be In such Iowa 256 127 N.W.2d event, possible prejudice, (1964); Leuty, to avoid a hear 83 State 247 Iowa 257-258, presence jury should ing (1955); outside the 64 73 N.W.2d State Knox, 499, 508, judge weigh be held can and 236 Iowa so resolve 18 N.W.2d 716 admissibility McCumber, regarding relevant factors 202 (1945); State v. 1382, 1385, credibility (1927); such related evidence. See Cot 137 N.W. State Commonwealth, Dickson, Ky., ton v. 454 S.W.2d 200 Iowa 202 N.W. (1925). 701-702. Furthermore, impeachment by can

This does not mean accused be both show any nonjury prior compelled testify felony in such conviction cross-exami subject then fun hearing, or that testimonial statements nation on the same have one by objective, e., in made him would admissible evi- damental i. to discredit a wit dence, trial, States, except of im- U. ness. Hoffa v. United See peachment. 293, 311, 408, 418, L.Ed.2d See Gordon v. United S. S.Ct. Hild, at 383 F.2d also (1966); citations. See State v. York, 1154-1155,

Harris 225- v. New 401 U.S. 39 N.W.2d 139 Un 643, 645-646, Evidence, (5th 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ed.); S.Ct. derhill’s Criminal § Witnesses, 610; Am.Jur., § C.J.S. Witnesses 372. § asserts, IX. State also cross-examina- tion of accused as to the matter of Manifestly today standard here prior felony proper conviction was since adopted preclude does not injected the issue witness, on direct examina- questioning including an ac- tion defendant-witness. cused, cross-examination, per Code § 781.13, any prior felony regarding convic- Signally, the does not' claim may tions as which counsel have defense preserve ap defendant failed to error for door”, “opened the Neither otherwise. pellate position review. Rather it takes the is it to a witness not be be inferred there was error because defense no counsel prior felony interrogated regarding con- opened the re door to cross-examination provided all viction as 622.17. In fact garding felony convictions. In other inquiries regarding such trial convic- words the State maintains that defend appropriately permitted tions still but are ant’s direct examination statement to the by the standard set forth. limited above previously effect he had been convicted generally Voltenburg, State Van attorney the prosecuting could 208-209, Iowa at pursue subject on cross-examination citations. without limitation as to nature offenses or times of conviction. follows, inferentially when timely appropriate objection is asserted essence, thereby In invokes permit judge pro a trial should not provides: Code 781.13 which forma any prior felony of a witness in “When testifies Rather, evidentially when the disclosed. behalf, subject own he shall be to cross- appropriately judge raised the issue is witness, ordinary examination as an but in the judicial discretion sound exercise strictly the state shall be there- confined with the view is consistent matter. Such in to the ex- matters testified to us admis generally expressed amination chief.” separate sibility offense evidence 247, 251 Noticeably Wright, cross-examina- 781.13 Harring 1972). tion of a has and is not never been 314, ton, 1970); (Iowa v. without some limitations. See State 178 N.W.2d cessful effort (Iowa Kelley, present opinion v. N.W.2d State of a expert. claimed 1968). trial After Martin had length it is self-evident testified at re- X. In repeatedly urged ingestion to do court, though garding here a of narcotics over balancing period years, in so, particularly factor about 15 engage did of day what- the robbery exercised no discretion process, and on here charged, the. impeach- admissibility Harry was as to Woods as a defense soever called wit- put to defendant on cross-ex- ness. ing questions

amination. County Mr. Woods then the Polk

Moreover, apparent drug specialist. is to the evi it us Court Services This wit- elicited, testimonially re resultantly (1) year at least with ness had dence stated he voluntary manslaughter training drug at gard counseling Col- Still conviction, relate any degree lege; (2) did not served an instructor for about unquestionably months; honesty. spe- three was the nafcotics truth substantially prejudicial City’s effect which cialist at Model Neighborhood had a probative Agency; to defend outweighed relevance Corrections had worked two approximately And the other 300 drug as to with users. ant’s induced, convictions, there testimonially Upon showing that foundational defense us to enables nothing in the record which attempted testimony counsel elicit elicited thus whether evidence determine drugs the effect certain Woods unfair chance such as to create an was not people, had on and the characteristics of Consequently, prejudice to defendant. objections addicts. State’s to most of these fair trial and denial prejudicial error ground questions were sustained on 793.18; v. Code State evident. See requisite expertise. lacked Woods (Iowa Vickroy, 205 N.W.2d at 1973); Wright, 203 N.W.2d attorney Defendant’s next asked a series 250-251; Jensen, questions designed hypothetical to reveal Masters, 1971); (Iowa person history, Martin’s whether with 1969); cf. (Iowa assertedly ingested drugs 171 N.W.2d on the having Texas, U.S. Burgett date, State of robbery was under the influence L.Ed.2d 319 crime; 88 S.Ct. of the was a constant same at time Davis, involuntarily user; voluntarily had then N. Wright, 191 1972); relat- drugs; and knew of the offense used Wallace, 639-640; State W.2d ed events. 145N.W.2d objections thereto based lack State’s conceded fairness must be In

In all sustained. proper foundation were tried at hand was the cause the wit- when trial observed instance court each not, today adopt was competent or we standard had not been shown ness hand, jus- course, in On the other questions. effect. answer the qualified to applied. instantly dictates it be tice proof. Defendant made no offer of this case set forth above For reasons Conder, Hedges 166 N. As stated a new must be reversed remanded (Iowa 1969): W.2d trial. testimony admissible “Expert is not remaining assignment Defendant’s XI. quali- witness is shown to be unless the thereby the issue entertained since will be facts he bases fied again retrial. arise raised opinion are sufficient to enable opin- qualified express assert so revealed As heretofore conjee- unsuc- is more than a mere ion which upon defendant’s error focuses ed except proof competent, the Bublitz, 2S4 other Hardwick v. ture. thereof. 1253,1259, record 119N.W.2d 889. “ provides the expert testi- the statute that ‘To warrant the use of When * * * interrogated “may” regarding are re- be conviction

mony, elements two felony, take First, the infer- I it that the discretion on subject the of of quired. belongs interrogate so to distinctly so related to whether or not be ence must science, interrogator, oc- the profession, or the not court. business some of the beyond the ken cupation as to be be narrowed the statute should Whether second, layman, the witness average and policy pro and involves considerations con. expe- skill, knowledge or such have as it is legislature The the statute enacted make field as to calling in that or rience body to narrow legislature and the is the opinion inference appear his or narrowed, under statute if it is to be the in his search aid the trier probably will sys- provide a legislature’s authority to the ” * * truth. practice in Iowa Const. tem of the courts. V, the Smith, to narrow 14. If we desire Art. also Ganrud § statute, proceed under I think we (Iowa 1973). should report authority the rule-making and our questions the asked of is obvious pursuant change to proposed legislature the specialized in the stood field Woods the Code. 684.19of anyone medico-sociological And science. testify expert provides in that Jersey as an A statute upon to New called N.J.S. requisite A, 2A, at possess must be shown to tit. 81-12: area expertise. 19 Drake L.Rev. tendant affecting the credi- For witness, any interest bility his action, may qualified proceeding have of the or matter Although Woods result may ex- counseling, the crime be testify drug conviction of otherwise, by the effect of and testimony of his as to shown examination clusion body may mind was . on the human his answers be contradicted oth- drugs (Italics by trial court. added.) an of discretion er evidence .... abuse Smith, supra. See Ganrud Supreme Jersey New stated in Court Hawthorne, subject will discussion Further N.J. purpose. serve no useful A.2d 684: error, last assignment Defendant’s “may” In the context connotes autho- mentioned, is merit. without above rization, grant permission a parties to civil criminal actions trial. a new Reversed and remanded for previous show the witness’s criminal

conviction testimonial examination or REES, MASON, REYNOLDSON by production Plainly record. McCORMICK, JJ., concur. option was given intended be and the in a criminal case, plaintiff and defendant UHLENHOPP, MOORE, J., and C. imposed a civil limit case. No time (cid:127) HARRIS, JJ., dissent. LeGRAND simply admissibility. There flat and unrestricted statement UHLENHOPP, (dissenting). shown may conviction of crime to af- Justice rep- fect The authorization provides in 622.17: The Iowa Code policy Legisla- resented decision ture, established, law, as to interrogated as a matter A witness felony. admissibility previous No without conviction for Any person to interval between the con- time who has been convicted of person’s appearance as a is, viction and the a criminal offense notwithstanding, a Thus, “may” competent the in the witness; witness. statute but the conviction bespeak grant permission may proved does not to affect his credibility, or judge discretion to the trial receive by either by the record his or own reject proof. contrary, or the cross-examination, the On upon which he must parties option are invested with the any answer question relevant to in- that and it is exercised the if examination quiry, party cross-examining answer, must be or the record of allowed convic- shall not be by concluded his tion received when offered. (Italics added.) A provides Minnesota statute in Minn. Supreme The Missouri Court stated in Morris, S.A. 595.07: 460 S.W.2d 629 (Mo.), has “an right absolute Every person convicted a crime show solely convictions affect competent any shall be a witness in civil credibility. any change If therein is to be proceeding, criminal but his convic- made, up it is Assembly to the General proved tion for the do Busby, so.” See also State S.W. affecting weight testimony, ei- 2d (Mo.) (same). ther record or cross-exami- nation, upon which he shall answer I affirm judgment would of the dis- proper question inquiry; relevant to that trict court. party cross-examining shall not

be concluded his answer thereto. MOORE, J.,C. LeGRAND (Italics added.) HARRIS, JJ., join this dissent. Supreme The Minnesota Court held in West, 188, 196, 197, Minn. 473, 474, “plain that under the

language” prosecution of the statute “the right

has a cross-examine conviction,

facts of the nature of the of-

fense, and identity of the defendant.” court further stated: al., Appellees, Charles A. GREEN et The members of this court have noted given to the recent some attention Gary McCormack, Rose J. SHAMA and F. leaving trend of to the trial court the Appellants. question particular of whether the con- No. 55775. against as a

viction raised substantially witness in his own behalf Supreme Court of Iowa. sugges- affects his our April 24, 1974. however, tion, revising 595.07 emerging state law conform to the It is legislature. be left to

should amend, make,

not for the courts to law, ap-

change statutory only but language a defi-

ply it. If its embodies no absurdi- meaning

nite which involves contradiction,

ty or the statute its own expositor.

best provides

A Missouri statute Mo.Rev.

Stat., 491.050:

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Martin

Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa

Date Published: Apr 24, 1974

Citation: 217 N.W.2d 536

Docket Number: 55207

Court Abbreviation: Iowa