affirming ruling allowing into evidence “grisly” photos that were “a fair and 30 accurate depiction” of the child–victim’s condition
How later courts described this case
- affirming ruling allowing into evidence “grisly” photos that were “a fair and 30 accurate depiction” of the child–victim’s condition
- affirming ruling allowing into evidence “grisly” photos that were “a fair and accurate depiction” of the child-victim’s condition
- other factors bearing on voluntariness are the defendant’s awareness of the alleged crime and his ability to understand his constitutional rights and the consequences of waiving them
- out-of-court statement, otherwise hearsay, admitted not to show truth of what was said but to explain responsive conduct, not regarded as hearsay
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and all of the opinion except the basis of division 1(d). I would hold that the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s hearsay objection to the victim’s written statement.
The theory of the reciprocal and integrated utterance rule is that statements of one party to a conversation may be admitted without regard to their truth or falsity to show the context in which admissible statements by another party were made. State v. Hilleshiem, 305 N.W.2d 710, 712-13 (Iowa 1981). Such showing may be made, however, only when the admissible evidence could not be fully understood out of context. Id. The trial court has discretion to refuse the right to make the showing when the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323, 1340 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948-49 (D.C.Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 989 , 94 S.Ct. 1586 , 39 L.Ed.2d 885 (1974).
In the present case, the officer read a three-page single-spaced handwritten statement of the victim to defendant. When the officer finished, defendant allegedly put his elbows on his knees, cupped his face with his hands and said, “I never meant to hurt her. I’m going to jail for fifty years.” The jury was told this reaction followed the officer’s reading of the statement. The jury knew the victim’s version of the events because she had already testified. The con *750 text of defendant’s response was thus fixed. It was fully intelligible without the statement being introduced. Putting the written statement into evidence served no legitimate purpose. It was not admissible for any nonhearsay purpose. It would have been admissible in the present circumstances only if defendant asserted it was inconsistent with the victim’s trial testimony.
Because the statement was substantially the same as her testimony, and she was fully cross-examined, I do not believe the statement added materially to the State’s case. The record is thus sufficient to overcome the presumption of prejudice which arises from the erroneous ruling. See State v. Trudo, 253 N.W.2d 101, 107-08 (Iowa 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 903 , 98 S.Ct. 299 , 54 L.Ed.2d 189 .
Therefore I agree the conviction should be affirmed.