Opinion ID: 1673753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admission of testimony of Brenda Culp.

Text: The minute of Brenda Culp's testimony attached to the trial information stated she would testify the murder weapon was stolen in May 1975. Defendants made appropriate objections to her trial testimony relating to Waterbury's purchase of the gun on July 17. An in-chambers discussion ensued. The State conceded the trial information did not set out a full and fair statement of the witness' expected testimony as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(3). But defense counsel agreed they were not surprised, because this testimony was disclosed fully when defendants took Culp's deposition on October 4, 1979. In State v. Walker, 281 N.W.2d 612, 614 (Iowa 1979), we observed rule 5(3) was enacted to provide the accused with information sufficientfully and fairlyto alert defendant generally to the source and nature of the evidence against him. We reinforced the rule in State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d 216, 220-21 (Iowa), cert. denied, U.S., 101 S.Ct. 530, 66 L.Ed.2d 290 (1980), by reversing for the prosecution's failure to comply with it. But in this case defendants were thoroughly apprised of the evidence to be presented by this witness's testimony two months before trial. The elements of surprise or prejudice were nonexistent. Thus we hold there was no reversible error in permitting the testimony to be introduced despite the faulty minute in the trial information. See State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d 138, 141 (Iowa 1979). Our ruling should not be interpreted as imposing any burden on an accused to take discovery depositions to avoid a claim of waiver of error relating to an incorrect or insufficient minute of testimony.