Opinion ID: 1577090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Regarding Defendant's Change in Appearance.

Text: Over defendant's objections the answers would have no relevance, the complaining witness was permitted to testify that defendant appear[ed] different . . . than he did then, and that he then was heavier, and had short hair although his hair at the time of the alleged crime was in a ponytail. The same issue arose at the first trial. On appeal we observed that defendant's appearance at the time of the incident was admissible, within trial court's discretion, as going to the identification of defendant as the assailant. State v. Zaehringer, 280 N.W.2d at 421. We also noted that the necessity or value of such evidences is questionable when the sole issue becomes consent. Id. In that decision we relied on State v. Ostrand, 219 N.W.2d 509, 513 (Iowa 1974), where we said: But should the case develop in the same way on retrial, we think the photograph should not be received in evidence. If defendant admits he sold marijuana as charged, the only purpose we can see for thereafter introducing the picture would be to display to the jury defendant's long hair and beard at the prior time, but defendant is not on trial for that. As the situation developed in the present case, there was no trial court error. Defendant's pretrial stipulation relating to identity was equivocal. Similar evidence was already in the record without objection when the questions were asked of the complaining witness, as trial court observed. The objection was not on the ground of prejudice, but of relevance. Upon retrial, if defendant clearly concedes the issue of identity on the record, we are confident trial court upon proper objection will not permit the same testimony if the court determines its sole purpose is to disclose to the jury defendant was heavier or had a ponytail at the time of the alleged crime.