Opinion ID: 1986133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reference to A Rash of Several Burglaries.

Text: One of the officers testified there had been a rash of several burglaries to explain why he was conducting an investigation. The defendant claims this was bad acts evidence prohibited by Iowa Rule of Evidence 404(b). The colloquy was as follows: Q. Did you investigate an incident which occurred at M.A. Moore & Associates and Overhead Door back in November of 1998, Investigator Moller? A. Yes, I did. Q. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen [of the jury] how you first got involved in that matter? A. I first became involved in the burglary to two businesses which occupy the residence or the address of the 800 block of Commercial and this would be M.A. Moore & Associates and also Overhead Door. They were broken into and nothing at that time of value appeared to be taken. This was on a Thursday, November the 5th. And it was a couple days after that that I was assigned to the case and the case progressed from there. Q. Okay. And in the course of your initial investigation, did you discover anything at that time? A. Yes, I did. I might also mention that back in October and November of last year, we had a rash of several burglaries in the downtown area where a forced entry would be made sometime during the evening and there appeared to be nothing of value taken. The State responds that the comment was merely background to explain investigator Moller's actions. See 1 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 401[05], at 401-29 (1994) [hereinafter Weinstein] (Evidence that serves as background information about persons, subjects or things in a trial is generally admissible although it may not relate to a consequential fact.). It is clear this was the context in which the court admitted the testimony, as shown by its admonition to the jury: I'll allow the witness to give a little more background as to why he was investigating this case, but I'd ask counsel to keep that limited and this is only for context, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This is not for purposes of this prosecution other than to give a brief background. The reference to other burglaries did not link the defendant to them, and in any event, the court's admonition adequately cured any error.