Opinion ID: 1280440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We consider the first two assignments of error together since they involve related questions arising out of defendant's cross-examination.

Text: Defendant's objections involve another interpretation of section 781.13, Code of Iowa, which provides: When the defendant testifies in his own behalf, he shall be subject to cross-examination as an ordinary witness, but the State shall be strictly confined therein to the matters testified to in the examination in chief. This section has been before us on numerous occasions. Our previous decisions have established that a defendant who offers himself as a witness subjects himself to the same rules on impeachment and credibility as other witnesses. He stands on the same footing as any other witness regarding his memory, history, motives and credibility. State v. Brandenberger, 151 Iowa 197, 204, 130 N.W. 1065, 1068; State v. Bittner, 209 Iowa 109, 118, 227 N.W. 601, 605; State v. Carter, 222 Iowa 474, 481, 269 N.W. 445, 449; State v. Brown, 253 Iowa 658, 669, 113 N.W.2d 286, 293; State v. Frese, 256 Iowa 289, 292, 127 N.W.2d 83, 85. The manner in which, and the extent to which, cross-examination of a defendant may be pursued is largely a matter of the trial court's discretion and its rulings will be disturbed only upon a clear showing that such discretion has been abused. State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 183, 254 N.W. 313, 316; State v. Ragona, 232 Iowa 700, 703, 5 N.W.2d 907, 909; State v. Drosos, 253 Iowa 1152, 1162, 114 N.W.2d 526, 531; State v. Myers, 257 Iowa 857, 861, 135 N.W.2d 73, 76; State v. Bittner, supra, 209 Iowa 109, 118, 227 N.W. 601, 605; State v. Van Voltenburg, 260 Iowa 200, 147 N.W.2d 869, 874. Defendant's examination in chief was very brief. He related certain matters of his early history and stated he had spent most of his life in Sioux City. He also testified he had graduated from East High School in Sioux City in 1964. On cross-examination defendant again stated he graduated from East High School but did not go to school all three years there. Then the following ensued: Q. You went somewhere else, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Where did you go to school? Mr. Galvin: This is objected to, on the ground that it is immaterial. It's improper cross-examination. The Court: Only for purposes of impeachment, he may answer. Q. Where did you go to school, Mr. Kelley? A. I went to Wentworth Military Academy and Iowa Training School for Boys. Q. Where are these schools located ? A. Wentworth is in Lexington, Missouri and Iowa Training School is in Eldora, Iowa. It is now claimed the answer referring to defendant's commitment to the Iowa Training School at Eldora is so prejudicial as to require a new trial. Under the circumstances existing here, there was no reversible error in the trial court's ruling. On direct examination the defendant had answered questions phrased to limit his reply to those matters about his early life and education which were thought to be favorable to him. This is proper trial strategy, but it cannot serve to prevent the State from inquiring into the same matters to show other circumstances which, perhaps, do not reflect complete credit on the defendant. State v. Davis, 212 Iowa 582, 593, 234 N.W. 858, 863. Here the challenged portion of defendant's cross-examination covered the same matter and the identical period of time which were the subject of his direct examination. If it was important for defendant to show he finished high school and graduated from East High, it is equally proper to show the circumstances of his educational background culminating in that event. The questions concerning defendant's attendance at other schools were legitimate extensions of his direct examination. Such questions do not become objectionable simply because the answers are damaging to defendant's cause. State v. Brandenberger, supra. Defendant relies on State v. Collins, 246 Iowa 989, 69 N.W.2d 31, but that case is clearly distinguishable. There the cross-examination elicited an admission of commitment to the Iowa Training School thirteen years prior to the trial. The opinion held this was too remote to be helpful in testing the defendant's credibility. We further said such inquiry was improper cross-examination since it was not related to the defendant's testimony in chief. Neither of these reasons prohibits the cross-examination objected to here. The Collins case lends no support to defendant's argument. The other issue involved in defendant's cross-examination is the testimony concerning his membership in a gang which frequented one of the city parks late at night. Without objection defendant testified that he had known Lefler and Anderson, the other two involved in this incident with him, for some years and that they were often at the park late at night and into the morning. Then the following cross-examination took place: Q. In fact, the three of you, at least, and a few others are known as the Park Gang. Mr. Galvin: This is objected to on the ground it is improper examination. It's argumentative. The Court: Overruled.    Q. Am I right, Mr. Kelley ? A. I don't know what other people call us, but I don't consider myself a gang or in a gang. Q. You are known as The Leaners ? A. It used to be The Leaners a long time ago. Q. You were part of The Leaners yourself, weren't you, if you're not now? A. I am one of the group, yes. In this connection we point out Lefler and Anderson were with defendant on the night the crime was committed. There was evidence they participated in it with him. Under these circumstances evidence of the relationship of these three young men to each other, their habits, their character and their past conduct was properly admissible as bearing upon defendant's credibility and motives. Objection is also made that defendant was obliged to list the names of some of those, besides himself, Lefler and Anderson, who were members of the so-called Leaners gang. Assuming, as defendant claims, this testimony to have been irrelevant, we find no prejudice from its admission. Defendant had already testified to the existence of such a group and to its approximate number. The additional recitation of the names of some of the individual members added nothing to this testimony. There is no claim they were so notorious or of such evil reputation that their mere identification would be prejudicial. We find no reversible error in the trial court's rulings discussed herein. II. The sole remaining assignment of error concerns the giving of the so-called verdict-urging instruction. After the jury had been deliberating for approximately 22 hours, the trial court gave an additional instruction, substantially in the form approved by the Iowa State Bar Association Uniform Instruction No. 1.1, which urged the jury to consider carefully all of the arguments and to listen attentively to the differing opinions of the members of the jury in a conscientious attempt to reach a verdict. Some two and a half hours later the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On several occasions we have held the giving of such an instruction is not error unless it has a coercive effect on the jury. The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether it should be given, and each case must be decided on its own circumstances. The ultimate test, as we said in Coulthard v. Kennan, 256 Iowa 890, 897, 129 N.W.2d 597, 601, is whether it forced or helped to force an agreement, or merely started a new train of real deliberation which ended the disagreement. There is nothing here to suggest coercion. Although the jury deliberation was quite long, there is no suggestion its physical needs and comfort were not adequately provided for. The length of deliberation after the additional instruction indicates further worthwhile consideration before a verdict was agreed to. We find no reversible error here. As support for our conclusion, see Coulthard v. Keenan, supra; State v. Bogardus, 188 Iowa 1293, 1299, 1301, 176 N.W. 327, 329 and citations; Gibbs v. Wilmeth, Iowa, 157 N.W.2d 93, 100. For the reasons set out herein the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.