Opinion ID: 2000101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's remaining assignment of error stems from the court's ruling sustaining the State's objection to a question asked of Patricia Fetters, defendant's wife.

Text: Mrs. Fetters was asked in reference to a trip made with defendant and Sego to a Picker residence on a farm near Roelyn, Did you have a conversation with yourself and your husband and Larry Sego that you were going to take some stuff other than the refrigerator from the house? The State objected, to that question for the reason that it is leading, and for the reason that it calls for hearsay. The objection was sustained. Defendant now contends he was offering this evidence for the sole purpose of explaining why he and Sego went to the Picker farmhome and removed property. However, after the objection was sustained defendant failed to make known to the court the limited purpose for which the evidence was offered. See Lemke v. Mueller, 166 N.W.2d 860, 870-871 (Iowa 1969). Materiality of the evidence sought to be elicited for this limited purpose is not apparent. The court committed no error in disallowing the evidence when its admissibility was challenged. We have considered all of the contentions urged by defendant and find none of them require reversal. The case is therefore affirmed. Affirmed.