Opinion ID: 1672761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expert Testimony Relating to Lapping Scheme.

Text: Testifying for the State, a certified public accountant provided an analysis of defendant's personal checking account and traced various deposits and checks. Defendant predicates error on the following portion of this witness's direct examination: Q. And how would you characterize that what you found in terms of the grain checks coming in and later checks going out to Froning and Deppe? MR. JONES: I object to that, it's calling for the conclusion and opinion of the witness, for the further reason that this is not the proper subject for opinion testimony, and for the further reason it invades the province of the jury. THE COURT: It will be overruled. Answer if you know. THE WITNESS: Okay. This type of transaction is commonly referred to as lapping. Defendant contends the court's ruling improperly allowed the response of the witness to invade the province of the jury. See State v. Nimmo, 247 N.W.2d 228, 230-31 (Iowa 1976); State v. Swartz, 244 N.W.2d 553, 555 (Iowa 1976); State v. Johnson, 224 N.W.2d 617, 622-23 (Iowa 1974). We are not required to address the merits of the objection or the court's ruling. Here the witness already had testified, without objection, that the pattern of depositing company money in, and reimbursing company money from, defendant's personal account was characterized as a lapping scheme. Ordinarily, error cannot be grounded on admission of the cumulative testimony. State v. Gartin, 271 N.W.2d 902, 914 (Iowa 1978). We affirm the judgment entered in district court. AFFIRMED.