Opinion ID: 1852856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Constitutional Right to Fair Trial.

Text: Finally, Roth asserts trial court's actions in excluding evidence of Sharon's 1965 conviction denied him his constitutional right to defend against the State's accusations. Passing the question whether error has been preserved on this constitutional issue, State v. Farni, 325 N.W.2d 107, 109 (Iowa 1982), we disagree. Our de novo review of the record convinces us Roth was given a fair opportunity to present his defense. Other than this single piece of remote, minimally probative, and potentially prejudicial evidence, Roth was able to present and develop his defense. He was allowed ample opportunity to examine all witnesses and present any other relevant evidence. We find Roth received a fair trial. Finding no reversible error, we vacate the court of appeals decision and affirm Roth's judgment. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.