ruling only granting or denying protection from prejudicial references to challenged evidence does not preserve inadmissibility issue for appellate review unless ruling reaches ultimate issue and declares evidence admissible or inadmissible
How later courts described this case
- ruling only granting or denying protection from prejudicial references to challenged evidence does not preserve inadmissibility issue for appellate review unless ruling reaches ultimate issue and declares evidence admissible or inadmissible
- holding when a motion in limine ruling “reaches the ultimate issue and declares the evidence admissible or inadmissible, it is ordinarily a final ruling and need not be questioned again during trial”
- stating “if the ruling reaches the ultimate issue and declares the evidence admissible or inadmissible, it is ordinarily a final ruling and need not be questioned again during trial”
- stating jurors should “view the merits of the particular circumstantial evidence presented without the restriction based on an outmoded generality”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and in all but division VI of the court’s opinion. I am unable to agree with the basis of division VI because I do not believe defendant alerted the trial court to the ground of his objection to the circumstantial evidence instruction.
Under rule 196, R.C.P., an objection to the court’s final draft of instructions or its failure to give requested instructions must specify “the matter objected to and on what grounds.” In the present case, defendant “objected” by requesting that the uniform instruction on circumstantial evidence be given instead , of the court’s instruction. I agree that this alerted the trial court to the matter objected to, but I do not believe it advised the court of the ground of the objection.
In an analogous situation in Crist v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 255 Iowa 615 , 123 N.W.2d 424 (1963), this court held the objection presented nothing for review.
I would reject defendant’s assignment of error in division VI on this basis.
LeGRÁND and HARRIS, JJ., join in this special concurrence.