# State v. O'CONNELL

> Supreme Court of Iowa · February 21, 1979 · 275 N.W.2d 197

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673872

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Thomas Joseph O’CONNELL, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** February 21, 1979
- **Citations:** 275 N.W.2d 197; 1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 842
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McCORMICK
- **Judges:** Reynoldson, McCormick, Le-Grand, Harris
- **Cited by:** 109 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673872

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9673872. Public record. Not legal advice.