Opinion ID: 1228432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motions with respect to testimony.

Text: Each defendant filed Motion to Strike Surplusage seeking to strike from the indictment, for various reasons, certain specified testimony of designated witnesses. This testimony was related to Kari's physical condition before and after the alleged assaults, prior instances of alleged abuse, and prior injuries. In overruling the motions, trial court clearly indicated to defense counsel he was not expressing an opinion as to the ultimate admissibility of such evidence, if and when offered in course of trial. At trial the vast bulk of this testimony came in without objection. After both parties rested, defense counsel renewed the above motions and specifically moved to withdraw the evidence of four named State's witnesses. These were overruled. With respect to the first motion, it should be observed we have never strictly limited the testimony of witnesses to the contents of the minutes. State v. Lanphear, 220 N.W.2d 618, 621 (Iowa 1974). Nor are the minutes either testimony or evidence. At best, defendants' pre-trial motions to strike testimony could be construed as motions in limine. A ruling which denies a motion in limine cannot be the basis for appeal. See State v. Garren, 220 N.W.2d 898, 899 (Iowa 1974). Applicable to the second motion are our cases holding a motion to strike or withdraw evidence is not timely where it came in without objection and the grounds of the motion should have been apparent before it was made. State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 887 (Iowa 1973); State v. Boose, 202 N.W.2d 368, 369 (Iowa 1972). We find no trial court error with respect to the above motions.