Opinion ID: 2212940
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The remaining question in connection with the evidentiary rulings of the trial court concerns statements by the prosecutor during final argument in the first trial.

Text: Defendants assert prejudicial error was committed by the court in permitting the State to display a color-coded map which purported to show when the Iowa Harvester dealers consistently began charging the extra ten percent on part prices. Defendants complain the prosecutor was in reality testifying while not under oath about facts ascertainable only by examination of thousands of invoices and comparing with price books and that they had had no opportunity to cross-examine. The State counters these invoices were properly admitted exhibits about which counsel could comment during final argument and, furthermore, that the map was simply illustrative of what the invoices showed. As to the map shown to the jury, it has been held there was no error in allowing a county attorney to show a drawing to the jury of what allegedly caused the accident. As the drawing showed the size and shape of the mound as it was claimed the evidence showed it to be, there was no error in permitting it to be used.    [I]t was not offered or used as evidence. It was used simply to illustrate what it was claimed the evidence showed. Stafford v. City of Oskaloosa, 64 Iowa 251, 258, 20 N.W. 174, 178. Here the invoices had been admitted as exhibits but there was no testimony thereon except in the State's attempted rebuttal which was objected to and sustained. Yet, this map still purported to illustrate what the invoices showed. Furthermore, a prosecutor may draw conclusions and point out permissible inferences and weaknesses in defendant's testimony. State v. Wesson, 260 Iowa 331, 340, 149 N.W.2d 190, 196. He may do the same in commenting upon the evidence. See State v. Whitfield, 212 N.W.2d 402, 406 (Iowa 1973). The same should logically follow as to the State's argument based upon the invoices. In State v. McConnell, 178 N.W.2d 386, 390 (Iowa 1970), this court said that in jury arguments counsel is entitled to some latitude in analyzing the evidence admitted in the trial, and he may draw conclusions and point out permissible inferences and weaknesses in defendant's testimony. Generally, a trial court may in its discretion permit counsel, in addressing a jury, to display drawings, diagrams, maps or other visual aids, not put in evidence, for the purpose of illustrating or elucidating matters properly in evidence provided the jury understands that they are employed merely for such purposes and are not of themselves evidence in any sense. Sheets v. Davenport, 181 Neb. 621, 631, 150 N.W.2d 224, 232; Jackson v. Sabuco, 21 Mich.App. 430, 435, 175 N.W.2d 532, 535. Defendants also assert it was error to allow the jury to have access to the meaningless bulk exhibits (invoices) during deliberations. Under modern American practice it is common to allow many types of tangible exhibits to be taken by the jury for consideration during the deliberations, provided that the exhibits have been formally admitted into evidence. The question whether a particular exhibit may be taken by the jury is widely viewed as subject to discretionary control by the trial judge.   . McCormick on Evidence, (Second Ed.), section 217, pp. 539-540. See also 2 Underhill's Criminal Evidence, (Fifth Ed.), section 513, page 1291. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in the respects urged by defendants. As pointed out, the conduct of the prosecutor giving rise to defendants' complaint occurred in the first trial. However, in the third trial the court overruled objections allowing the jury to have access to the invoices during deliberations. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion as exercised in the third trial.