Opinion ID: 1891623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issue relating to showing disposition of other charges.

Text: State's lead witness, Officer Kinkead, testified on direct examination Spieker reported and described the running man to him, and I put out an attempt to locate for that subject that he described. The following examination ensued: Q. What did you do then? A. We    checked the area a bit more and assumed he had escaped so we went back and handled the hit and run reports that were made from the garages being struck. Q. What happened after you did the hit and run reports? A. Well, during doing that we checked on the vehicle registration and found it to be a Joyce Spaight.   . This was the sole reference to any other possible lawbreaking by defendant. But on cross-examination defense counsel developed through this officer the latter filed two hit and run charges against defendant based on damage to the two garages. By three different questions defendant sought to show the disposition of those charges. Each time trial court sustained the State's objection that the evidence sought was irrelevant. We may infer disposition of these related charges was favorable to defendant, although no offer was made to show what the answers to the questions would have been. When evidence of another crime is admitted through an exception to the usual exclusion rule, most jurisdictions permit the accused to show he or she was acquitted of that charge. People v. Griffin, 66 Cal.2d 459, 466, 58 Cal.Rptr. 107, 111, 426 P.2d 507, 510-511 (1967); Womble v. State, 8 Md. App. 119, 125, 258 A.2d 786, 789-790 (1969); State v. Smith, 271 Or. 294, 298-299, 532 P.2d 9, 11-12 (Or.1975); see 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 262, at 625 (1972); Annot., EvidenceOther OffenseAcquittal, 86 A.L.R.2d 1132 (1962). State v. Leahy, 243 Iowa 959, 967, 54 N.W.2d 447, 452 (1952), indicates Iowa would adopt the majority rule permitting such evidence. In Leahy defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. This charge arose out of an incident in which defendant, taken to the police station, pointed a gun at a detective. Defendant was at the station because his wife had been wounded by a bullet from defendant's gun an hour earlier. Although trial court sustained an objection to a question which sought to disclose defendant was tried and acquitted on an indictment for shooting his wife, this evidence came in later. However, the Leahy court observed, [w]ith all of the testimony introduced by the state with regard to this [the wife's] shooting there should have been no hesitation on the part of the trial court to allow defendant to show it was without criminal liability. In the case before us, had the State elicited testimony concerning the hit and run charges, trial court would have been in error in not permitting defendant to prove a favorable disposition. But here the unsolicited reference by the officer to hit and run reports did not connect defendant to any criminal charge for hit and run. Defendant's own examination first touched on the other charges. The rule invoked in State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 1975), applies here: [A] party to a criminal proceeding will not be permitted to complain of error with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence where    he himself has acquiesced in, committed, or invited the error. Charged with one offense, defendant should not be permitted to show other offenses and then establish his acquittal of them. Defendant, on this assignment, suffers from a self-inflicted wound. We find no error.