Opinion ID: 1986133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Defendant's Refusal to Provide Handwriting Exemplar.

Text: At trial the State offered evidence of the defendant's failure to provide a handwriting exemplar, and pursuant to the court's pretrial ruling, the evidence was admitted at trial. In State v. Longstreet, 407 N.W.2d 591, 595 (Iowa 1987), we expressly reserved the issue of admitting evidence of a defendant's failure to provide a handwriting exemplar. We noted, however, that [i]n most jurisdictions the trial court would allow the prosecution to comment on the defendant's refusal to produce exemplars as tending to suggest their guilt. Longstreet, 407 N.W.2d at 595. The defendant relies on United States v. White, 355 F.2d 909, 912 (7th Cir.1966), to support his argument that evidence of his refusal to submit an exemplar was improperly admitted. White, however, is not persuasive. It does not address the issue in depth and, in fact, has not been followed in the circuit that decided it. In a subsequent case, United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 845-46 (7th Cir.1989), the seventh circuit reached the opposite result with a more thorough analysis and without citation to White. The Jackson court adopted the majority view, stating [w]e believe the evidence of the defendant's refusal to furnish writing exemplars, like evidence of flight and concealment, is probative of consciousness of guilt, or in other words guilty knowledge. Id. at 846; see also Wilson v. State, 596 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992) ([R]efusal is considered circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt. (quoting Wayne R. LaFave & Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure § 7.2(c) (1982))). Indeed, it has been noted that [a]ll federal circuits passing on the question held or opined that the refusal to submit a handwriting exemplar was admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt except for the seventh circuit, which 23 years [after White ] fell into line. H. Richard Uviller, Self-Incrimination by Inference: Constitutional Restrictions on the Evidentiary Use of a Suspect's Refusal to Submit to a Search, 81 J.Crim. L. & Criminology 37, 56 & n.64 (1990). It is clear handwriting exemplars are different from statements privileged under the Fifth Amendment: There is no doubt that requiring a defendant to give a handwriting specimen does not violate his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination since the privilege reaches only compulsion of a defendant's communication. Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 267, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 1953, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967). A mere handwriting exemplar, in contrast to the content of what is written, like the voice or body itself, is an identifying physical characteristic outside its protection. Id. at 266-67, 87 S.Ct. at 1953 (citation omitted); see also United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19, 21, 93 S.Ct. 774, 776, 35 L.Ed.2d 99 (1973). Since handwriting exemplars are not testimonial or communicative matters but instead are an identifying physical characteristic of the person, Gilbert, 388 U.S. at 266-67, 87 S.Ct. at 1953; Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 764, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1832, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966), evidence of, or comment on the defendant's refusal to comply with the lawful court order for the handwriting exemplars is distinguishable from evidence of, or commenting on the defendant's constitutional rights to refuse to testify at trial, or to post-arrest silence. Jackson, 886 F.2d at 845 n. 8; see also United States v. Brown, 156 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir.1998) ([Defendant's] refusal to give an exemplar was not privileged, and the jury could properly consider his refusal as evidence that the results of that testing would have been adverse.); Wilson, 596 So.2d at 777; People v. Denard, 148 A.D.2d 957, 539 N.Y.S.2d 195, 195 (1989). It also appears there is no difference between a refusal to submit a handwriting exemplar and an attempt to disguise the handwriting in the exemplar; evidence of noncompliance is admissible in both instances. [I]t is not improper for the prosecution to show that the defendant attempted to avoid providing a valid handwriting sample by intentionally distorting his handwriting. .... Just as a defendant's refusal to provide a handwriting exemplar is admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt, so too is opinion evidence of a defendant's efforts to disguise his handwriting on an exemplar. People v. Tai, 37 Cal.App.4th 990, 44 Cal. Rptr.2d 253, 257-58 (1995) (quoting United States v. Stembridge, 477 F.2d 874, 876 (5th Cir.1973)) (other citation omitted). We hold this evidence was properly admitted.