Opinion ID: 2115684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The first complaint voiced by defendant on appeal is, in essence, trial court erroneously refused to give a requested instruction relative to what is designated as character evidence.

Text: A search of the record discloses defendant's trial counsel took no exception to the court's refusal of his requested instruction either before the instructions were read or in the motion for new trial. This alleged error need not therefore be considered. The Code 1966, Section 782.1; Iowa R.Civ.P. 196; State v. Gilmore, (Iowa), 181 N.W.2d 145, opinion filed November 10, 1970; State v. Boston, 233 Iowa 1249, 1254-1255, 11 N.W.2d 407. See generally 88 C.J.S. Trial § 425; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 832. Be that as it may, all instructions requested have been reviewed and found to be either incorrect, or to the extent applicable were substantially embodied in those given. II. Although instruction 7 regarding character evidence is not a model to be followed, it appears to give defendant the benefit of any doubt relative to credibility testimony presented in his behalf. See State v. Hobbs, 172 N.W.2d 268, 271-272 (Iowa); 41 Iowa L.Rev. 325, 346. See also State v. Levy, 160 N.W.2d 460, 469 (Iowa); State v. Johnson, 215 Iowa 483, 491-493, 245 N.W. 728; 24 Iowa L.Rev. 498. In this respect, as best we can determine, evidence presented by the accused went not to pertinent character traits but rather to his reputation for truth and veracity. This line of testimony was introduced absent any apparent challenge as to admissibility. That brings into focus a well established principle that, unless the credibility of any witness is first placed in issue, no sustaining evidence is allowed. See Homan v. United States, (8 Cir.), 279 F.2d 767, 772; McCormick, Evidence, (single volume), § 49; 3 Jones on Evidence, (4th ed.), § 865; 1 Underhill's Criminal Evidence, (5th ed.), § 241; Annots. 15 A.L.R. 1065; 33 A.L.R. 1220. It is to us evident instruction 7 was most favorable to defendant and, under existing circumstances, he instantly has no cause for complaint. Additionally the sole protest voiced in course of trial by defendant's attorney was a bare objection without specification of any ground, not later referred to in his new trial motion. This actually affords no basis for consideration of the matter on review. See The Code 1966, Section 782.1; Iowa R.Civ.P. 196; State v. Brown, 172 N.W.2d 152, 157-160 (Iowa); State v. Franklin, 163 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Iowa); State v. Fiedler, 260 Iowa 1198, 1204-1205, 152 N.W.2d 236; 53 Am.Jur., Trial, § 833.