Opinion ID: 2144552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The minutes of evidence.

Text: During the trial Bolden approached the prosecutor and informed him for the first time of conversations with the defendant in which the defendant had told Bolden that he would effectively take an eye for an eye from the person who had informed the authorities of the crime in which his brothers had participated. The prosecutor immediately related this information to defense counsel and the trial court. At an inchambers discussion the defendant objected to the proposed introduction of the testimony on motive, claiming it was without the scope of the State's minutes of evidence, Iowa R.Crim.P. 5(3), [4] as defined in State v. Walker, 281 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Iowa 1979). This objection was denied by the trial court, and over the defendant's incourt objections Bolden testified that prior to the shooting the defendant stated he would have his revenge against the person who had snitched on his brothers. On appeal the defendant again contends the admission of this testimony to be error. Although the State concedes this testimony by Bolden exceeded the scope of the minutes, we do not agree. The minutes provided in part that Bolden would testify about his relationship with Dennis Ray Epps prior to the shooting and conversations that took place with [him] prior to the shooting. This statement encompasses the testimony by Bolden on the defendant's conversations with him concerning his brothers' arrest and what he intended to do about it. While the defendant stresses he was not placed on notice of this evidence since there was no indication of it in a file presented to him by the State before trial, no significance attaches to that fact under rule 5(3). In any event, the State could not have specified the nature of these particular conversations in the minutes since it was unaware of their substance until the trial had begun. As rule 5(3) provides, the State is only required to provide in the minutes the name, place of residence and occupation of each witness upon whose expected testimony the information is based, and a full and fair statement of the witness' expected testimony. (Emphasis added.) Cf. State v. Marchellino, 304 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1981) (under Iowa R.Crim.P. 12(3) a defendant must list all witnesses expected to be called for the defense; subjective test of defendant's expectation applied). Moreover, although defense counsel at oral argument insisted he requested substantial additional time for the preparation of the defense in light of the testimony on motive, no motion for continuance, Iowa R.Crim.P. 18(2), appears in the record. Under such circumstances any alleged error in the admission of the testimony was waived. Cf. State v. Hall, 297 N.W.2d 80, 92 (Iowa 1980) (motion for continuance not sought where State furnished exculpatory evidence during, rather than before, trial); State v. Rush, 242 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Iowa 1976) (motion for continuance not sought where State filed an amended and substituted information).