Opinion ID: 2130950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did trial court abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's motion in limine?

Text: Defendant argues trial court abused its discretion in overruling her motion in limine to require the State to make no mention and to introduce no photographs relating to the book Helter Skelter, found on a couch in defendant's home. Millsap testified without objection he discussed the book with defendant, who said she just finished reading it. In view of defendant's first statements that Douglas had shot himself, the State deemed it significant the book described a murder of a Manson family member in which the fatal gunshot wound was claimed to be self-inflicted. A photograph of the book, lying on the couch where it was found, was allowed in evidence over defendant's objections it was incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. But Millsap's testimony, outlined above, came in without objection. He was thoroughly cross-examined on this point. Ordinarily reversible error cannot be predicated on an order overruling a motion in limine. State v. Johnson, 244 N.W.2d 809, 812 (Iowa 1976), and citations. Admission of evidence is not prejudicial error where substantially the same evidence is in the record without objection. State v. Jurgenson, 225 N.W.2d 310, 312-313 (Iowa 1975). We find no ground for reversal in this respect.