Opinion ID: 1244489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Admission of Testimony From a Former Trial Given by an Allegedly Unavailable Witness.

Text: Finally, defendant complains that the district court erred in permitting the State to read into evidence the testimony given by witness Cheri Jolin from defendant's burglary and robbery trial. This was permitted based on the State's contention that they were unable to locate this witness in order to serve a subpoena on her for the murder trial. Defendant contends that the record fails to show that the State made a good-faith effort to secure the witness's presence at the murder trial. We disagree. Under rule 804(b)(1) of the Iowa Rules of Evidence, testimony from a prior trial may be read to the jury in a later proceeding if the witness is then unavailable and if the party against whom the testimony is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. Cheri Jolin was vigorously cross-examined by defendant's counsel at his robbery and burglary trial. The use of prior trial testimony in a later criminal case under rule 804(b)(1) does not violate the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution if the prosecuting authority has made a reasonable effort to secure the witness's presence. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2543, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 613 (1980). An investigator for the Linn County Attorney's Office testified as to the efforts that were made to locate Cheri Jolin. He stated that he had been given a subpoena to serve upon her several weeks before the trial began. He attempted to locate her at two former addresses known to him in the State of Iowa. In the process, he deduced from friends of the witness that she was in the State of Wisconsin. He testified that he was not able to locate an address for her in that state. He had attempted to trace her through her boyfriend, whom he believed was incarcerated in Wisconsin but who he later learned had bonded out and left the area. When that avenue proved fruitless, a material witness warrant was issued, but Wisconsin authorities had not been able to execute that warrant at the time of defendant's trial. Although defendant's appellate counsel seeks to second-guess the efforts that were undertaken to locate this witness, much of the resulting criticism rests in speculation and did not find support in the cross-examination of the county attorney's investigator. We conclude, as did the district court, that the State made a reasonable effort to locate Cheri Jolin and, because that effort proved unsuccessful, was entitled to read into evidence her testimony from the prior trial. We have considered all arguments presented on this appeal and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. AFFIRMED.