Opinion ID: 1608539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Admissibility of Complete Autopsy.

Text: Broadlawns also believes that the district court erred in admitting only a redacted version of Dr. Garrity's report from Jillene's autopsy. The portion excluded by the district court included the toxicology results produced after testing Jillene's blood and urine. Those results indicated that Jillene had certain amounts of methamphetamine and amphetamine in her system at the time of her death. Broadlawns argued that this information was relevant because the Estate was requesting future damages and the decedent's... sobriety or intemperance ... and other personal characteristics that are of assistance in securing business or earning money are relevant to the determination of such damages. Iowa-Des Moines Nat'l Bank, 288 N.W.2d at 201; see also Ward v. Loomis Bros., Inc., 532 N.W.2d 807, 811 (Iowa Ct.App.1995) (upholding trial court decision permitting the admission of evidence of litigants' extensive marijuana use). Even if certain evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice arising from its admission. Iowa R. Evid. 5.403. Although Jillene's toxicology information may have been relevant to the issue of her future damages, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the admission of the toxicology information ran the risk of unfair prejudice to the Estate. See Iowa-Des Moines Nat'l Bank, 288 N.W.2d at 201; Iowa R. Evid. 5.403. The information contained in the complete autopsy report likely would have had significant prejudicial effect on the jury's view of Jillene. The effect of this evidence may have been to cause the jury to look past Jillene's sobriety or intemperance as an influence on her future well-being to instead focus on Jillene as a drug addict. Additionally, the probative value of the evidence is marginal. Broadlawns made no offer of proof and did not point to other evidence that would suggest Jillene regularly used illegal drugs. Balancing the probative value of the evidence against its possible prejudicial effect leads us to believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence.