Opinion ID: 2041856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Next to be considered is defendant's contention to the effect Timko was erroneously permitted to introduce certain testimony over defendant's hearsay objection.

Text: In course of trial Officer Timko appeared as a State's witness. After he had testified as aforesaid regarding defendant's search for a missing key and Miss Palmer's production of LSD, this colloquy occurred: Q. Now, you say Miss Palmer produced this substance? A. Yes. Q. And what did she do with it? A. She in turn handed it to me for my observation. Q. And what did she say? MR. FEHSEKE: We'll object to any statements made by Miss Palmer to Mr. Timko for the reason they call for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. It is admissible so far as made in the presence of the defendant. Overruled. A. It was stated, in fact, that the drugs were not hers; that she was holding them, and that they were the actual possession of the defendant, Mr. Menke. Q. (By Mr. Drake) They belonged to the defendant? A. That is correct. In State v. Smith, 195 N.W.2d 673, 675 (Iowa 1972) this court defined hearsay as a statement other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. See also State v. Lanphear, 220 N.W.2d 618, 621-622 (Iowa 1974); State v. Kelsey, 201 N.W.2d 921, 924 (Iowa 1972). See generally Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 86-89, 91 S.Ct. 210, 218-219, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); Rule 801, Federal Rules of Evidence, Act of January 2, 1975, Pub.L. No. 93-595, 93rd Congress, H.R. 5463 (16 Crim.L. 3009, 3013). Unquestionably, Miss Palmer's out-of-court statement, testified to by Timko, was testimonially offered to prove defendant's ownership of the LSD delivered by Palmer to Timko. It was thus offered to prove the truth of the statement made and therefore stood as hearsay. It must be prefatorilly conceded, mere silence by defendant at or about the time the challenged statement was made would not, alone, render same admissible as to him. See State v. Kelsey, 201 N.W.2d at 925-927.