Opinion ID: 1725936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did trial court erroneously curtail defendant's right of cross-examination?

Text: Under cross-examination defendant testified he was uncooperative with the police following discovery of the murders because police officer Zarifis made threatening gestures toward him. Zarifis was called on State's rebuttal and denied these accusations. On cross-examination defendant was not permitted to ask a question which was subsequently offered in chambers: Officer Zarifis, are you the same David Zarifis that Justice McCormick of the Iowa Supreme Court in the recent decision of State versus Pooler, in describing your conduct as a police officer, observed that it was the most disgraceful account of any police conduct that he had ever heard? Zarifis, later in chambers, conceded he was the Zarifis mentioned in State v. Pooler, 255 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 1977). In Pooler officer Zarifis was involved in an undercover investigation. His superiors gave him permission to participate in a break-in. In the course of this assignment Zarifis also operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree. 255 N.W.2d at 329. While the department's action was condemned in Pooler, we did not use the language attributed to us in the cross-examination question. When a witness testifies, he places his credibility in issue. State v. Connor, 241 N.W.2d 447, 455 (Iowa 1976). Prior conduct which relates to honesty and veracity is frequently admissible on cross-examination. See State v. Johnson, 219 N.W.2d 690, 695 (Iowa 1974). However, we hold trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objection to this question. First, it did not fairly reflect the gist of Pooler. Second, the conduct subject to our censure does not reflect on Zarifis' truthfulness or credibility as a witness. See generally, State v. Crawford, 202 N.W.2d 99, 103-05 (Iowa 1972).