Case Title: State v. Long

Citation: 93 N.W.2d 744

Docket Number: 

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1958-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
93 N.W.2d 744 (1958) STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harvey John LONG, Defendant-Appellant. No. 49466. Supreme Court of Iowa. December 16, 1958. Don Hise, Des Moines, for appellant. Norman A. Erbe, Atty. Gen., Hugh V. Faulkner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ray Hanrahan, Polk County Atty., and Leo S. Ballard, Asst. Polk County Atty., Des Moines, for appellee. LINNAN, Justice. Appellant was found guilty of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated by a jury in Polk County, Iowa. The only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Assistant County Attorney of Polk County was guilty of such prejudicial misconduct so as to require a new trial. The defendant was arrested on March 5, 1957 at about 11:36 p. m. after he had collided with a telephone pole and a parking meter. He voluntarily consented to have a blood test taken and the blood test was taken at the Lutheran Hospital in Des Moines which showed a blood count of 268 mm per 100 cc. Upon the trial of the case, his family physician, Dr. Harry Kaack, Jr., of Clinton, Iowa, was called out of order as a witness on his behalf. This doctor testified that the defendant had been a diabetic since February, 1948, and that he normally carried a blood count in excess of 200 mm and that the blood test which was taken following his arrest was worthless. Upon direct examination, he testified as follows: After this questioning and some further questions in regard to the effect of acetone in the blood stream, the following proceedings took place: After the cross examination of this witness was conducted, the Assistant County Attorney, Mr. Ballard, made the following statement in the presence of the jury: Thereupon the jury was excused and the following proceedings took place not in the presence of the jury: *747 "Mr. Hise: That is correct. Later the State called as witnesses two pathologists from the Iowa Lutheran Hospital in Des Moines, who testified that the presence of acetone in the blood stream would not increase the blood count over 50 mm and that a person who had a blood count of 268 mm would be intoxicated regardless of the presence of acetone in the blood stream. Upon this record the case was submitted to a jury who found the defendant guilty. The sole question before this court is whether or not the statement of the Assistant County Attorney in the presence of the jury constituted prejudicial misconduct as to require a new trial. It is the opinion of this court that it did not. I. From the foregoing record, it must be noted that the question of another blood test was more or less initiated or suggested by the questions propounded to Dr. Kaack by defendant's counsel in his direct examination. Further, both the trial court and defendant's counsel made it a matter of record that the statement objected to was made in good faith. It further appears that after the court's ruling the matter was not further pursued and was not commented upon in the argument to the jury. It would appear, therefore, that the verdict of the jury was based upon the positive testimony of the State's expert witnesses rather than upon the statement of counsel to which objection was made. II. The three cases cited by appellant in his brief, State v. Tolson, 248 Iowa 733, 82 N.W.2d 105, State v. Leuty, 247 Iowa 251, 73 N.W.2d 64, and State v. Comes, 245 Iowa 485, 62 N.W.2d 753, do not support the contention that the defendant did not receive a fair trial in this case. In each of those cases, there were repeated, persistent, and flagrant acts of misconduct by the prosecuting attorney, sometimes continued after adverse rulings by the trial court. No such misconduct appears in this case. III. We recently said in State v. Olson, Iowa, 86 N.W.2d 214, at page 225: *748 The case of State v. Case, 247 Iowa 1019, 75 N.W.2d 233, 239, seems to be quite analogous to the case at bar. There the prosecuting attorney in the absence of judge and jury asked defendant in his counsel's presence, if he was willing to submit a specimen of his handwriting for comparison with a writing in his confession he denied was his. Defendant did not consent. When trial was resumed, a witness was called who testified over objection that the defendant had been requested to furnish such a specimen and that he would not consent to do so. Comment was also made about this refusal in argument to the jury. In affirming a conviction in that case, this court said: Later in the opinion, we further said: See also State v. Haffa, 246 Iowa 1275, 71 N.W.2d 35, and State v. Jensen, 245 Iowa 1363, 66 N.W.2d 480. IV. Complaint is also made because the trial court did not admonish the jury to disregard the statement of the prosecuting attorney. We do not think any prejudice resulted therefrom. State v. Ean, 90 Iowa 534, 58 N.W. 898, State v. Kouhns, 103 Iowa 720, 73 N.W. 353. Admonishing the jury might only have emphasized the matter. While the record does not show that defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, we must assume that it was and from that fact the trial court must have found that the matter objected to was not prejudicial. Upon the whole record, we feel that the defendant had a fair trial and that the case should be affirmed. All Justices concur.