Opinion ID: 1663865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: error in admitting evidence

Text: Another recurring objection was defendant's insistence the area adjacent to his property where Deputy Smith allegedly parked his car and where some of this altercation took place was not a public alley, as described by some of the witnesses. We have already said the officer was not illegally on defendant's property. Whether this narrow strip was a public alley or was private property would not change the result. Furthermore, we believe there was sufficient evidence to show it was a public alley. We find no error in the admission of this testimony. Defendant also strenuously objected to the testimony of a number of witnesses concerning the hit-and-run accident and the damage done to the vehicle which was struck. Defendant says this testimony was hearsay; that it related to the commission of another crime and was therefore inadmissible; and that it was irrelevant to any issue in this case. The testimony of the deputy sheriff who received the incoming call, and, as a result, dispatched Officer Smith to the scene, was clearly admissible as accounting for Smith's presence at defendant's home. It was not introduced to establish the truth of the hit-and-run accident nor of defendant's involvement therein. This is also true of the testimony concerning telephone calls reporting the hit-and-run accident. This evidence simply explained the reason for Smith's presence and set the stage for his attempted investigation. It was not introduced to establish the truth of any of the facts stated in the conversations. See State v. Leonard, 243 N.W.2d 887, 890-891 (Iowa 1976); State v. Fryer, supra, 243 N.W.2d at 6 and citations; State v. Watson, 242 N.W.2d 702, 705 (Iowa 1976); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 748-749 (Iowa 1975). The last objection to the admission of evidence requires some discussion. It relates to the conduct of defendant following the hit-and-run accident and before the arrival of Deputy Smith. Several witnesses testified defendant was seen in his yard waving a shotgun in the air and shouting obscenities. They said they were frightened by his actions and took measures to protect their own safety. The record is not clear whether this was reported to the sheriff and was an additional reason for the investigation made by Deputy Smith. If so, this evidence would be admissible under the rule announced above. If, however, this was not a reason for Smith's investigation and would not go to explain his presence on the scene, we hold defendant's objection as to relevancy was good. It is questionable if defendant's objection to this evidence was timely, but we express our views because this situation may well arise again if there is a retrial. Defendant's erratic behavior as above described occurred prior to the deputy's arrival. Defendant did not have a gun when Smith arrived. He was then engaged in friendly conversation with Mr. Gray. The gun incident and the accompanying obscenities were irrelevant to the charge for which defendant was on trial and were, we believe, prejudicially so. On retrial this evidence should be excluded unless it serves to explain the reason for Deputy Smith's presence on defendant's property.