Case Title: State v. Henning

Citation: 238 N.W.2d 783

Docket Number: 

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1976-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
238 N.W.2d 783 (1976) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Virgil G. HENNING, Appellant. No. 58292. Supreme Court of Iowa. February 18, 1976. *784 Mike Wilson, Des Moines, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Thomas D. McGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Kenneth Whitehead, Jasper County Atty., for appellee. Submitted to MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ. UHLENHOPP, Justice. This appeal involves two rulings by the trial court in a trial of a charge of delivery of a controlled substance, amphetamine. The Jasper Assistant County Attorney charged defendant Virgil G. Henning with delivery of amphetamine. Code 1975, § 204.401(1)(b). Defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon trial, a jury found him guilty and the trial court passed sentence. Defendant appealed. Defendant contends here that the trial court erred (1) in admitting testimony regarding the conversation which occurred at the time of the alleged delivery, and (2) in holding the evidence sufficient for submission of the case to the jury. The testimony regarding delivery was quite extensive. Acting on prior information, undercover officers went to Kellogg, Iowa. Officer Forrest Davenport entered the Ma & Pa Tap there, where he first talked with a waitress, Marcia Allspach, about buying 1000 "crosses." These are amphetamine tablets, called crosses, cross-roads, L.A. turnarounds, or speed. The waitress nodded affirmatively and demanded 20 cents apiece for the pills. Defendant became involved in the conversation when the waitress left to wait on a customer. Officer Davenport testified regarding defendant: The conversation continued at some length. The officer eventually agreed to buy 1000 crosses from defendant and paid defendant $200 for them, and defendant got the pills and delivered them to the officer. Subsequent laboratory analysis showed that the pills contained amphetamine, a controlled substance. I. Defendant objects to admission of the portion of the conversation we have quoted. He contends it is irrelevant, or alternatively that any relevance it has is outweighed by its prejudicial nature. The conversation is admissible, however, as part of the transaction under consideration. State v. Oppedal, 232 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa); State v. Guess, 223 N.W.2d 214 (Iowa); State v. Drake, 219 N.W.2d 492, 494 (Iowa) ("The state is always entitled to show what actually happened at the time of the offense. The fact that this may necessarily include recitation of the commission of another crime or other unfavorable circumstance does not render such evidence inadmissible."); State v. Lyons, 210 N.W.2d 543, 546 (Iowa) ("`Let it be said that such acts [are] receivable as "necessary parts of the proof of an entire deed" or "inseparable elements of the deed", or "concomitant parts of the criminal act", or anything else that carries its own reasoning and definition with it.'"). Defendant's first assigned error is not tenable. II. Defendant contends that the State did not establish a prima facie case. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. State v. House, 223 N.W.2d 195 (Iowa). Review of the record clearly discloses that the State established defendant's guilt of the crime charged by substantial evidence. The second assigned error is not meritorious. Affirmed.