Opinion ID: 1923817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did trial court err in overruling objections to questions relating to Furman's statements to Anderson?

Text: During the State's examination of Furman he was questioned about the September 16 cocaine sale in which he participated. He then testified that on September 14 he directed Anderson to drive to defendant's residence in Ames to find some cocaine. Furman was asked, [H]ave you ever made a statement that you have been a dealer for the last five years in the Nevada community? Defendant objected this was irrelevant and immaterial. He made no objections on the ground of prejudice to the defendant, or hearsay. Trial court overruled the objection. Furman, after his own fifth amendment objection was overruled, answered affirmatively. The State argues Furman's statement was probative of defendant's intent to profit because it made it more likely Furman and defendant had a business relationship; that if Furman was an established drug dealer he must have known defendant was a source of cocaine. This in turn made it more likely defendant sold cocaine for profit. While this rationale may be tenuous, we hold admission of the statement was not reversible error. If in truth there is no discernible link between Furman's statement and defendant's intent to profit, we fail to see how defendant was prejudiced. Questions of relevancy and materiality of evidence rest within the sound discretion of the court. State v. Johnson, 219 N.W.2d 690, 698 (Iowa 1974). Evidence must be unduly and clearly prejudicial to the defendant for its admission to constitute reversible error. Id. The prosecutor also asked Furman if he had told Anderson, You should be around because there is so much [cocaine]. You could have had all the coke you wanted last weekend. This was objected to on the grounds it was irrelevant and immaterial, an attempt to prejudice the Jury with regard to other matters that have absolutely no bearing on the guilt or innocence of Allan Gibb. This objection was overruled. Trial court cautioned the jury it was not to consider this statement for the truth of the matter asserted, or as proof that much cocaine was in fact available. They were directed not to consider the statement as any evidence the defendant was somehow tied to that previous weekend, and were told it was offered only to show whether the witness made the statement and to show the nature of the relationship between Anderson and the witness. In view of trial court's careful admonitions to the jury, what we have said concerning the prior statement applies here. We find no reversible error.