Opinion ID: 1691643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Steroid Use.

Text: During Crone's direct testimony, he stated he did not use narcotic drugs. On cross-examination, he admitted in response to questions from the prosecutor that he had in the past taken steroids without a doctor's prescription. [3] His attorney did not object to this questioning and Crone claims trial counsel was ineffective for not doing so. Even if we assume the admission of this evidence was objectionable, Crone can show no prejudice. To establish prejudice, Crone must show a reasonable probability that but for the error the outcome of the trial would have been different. See Spurgeon, 533 N.W.2d at 220. The evidence of Crone's guilt was substantial. Crone admitted that he took the pictures, had them developed and made the fliers. He also admitted that he called Forman the next day, asking her to meet him and that he mentioned the pictures. He testified he wanted her to come to Maxie's so he could embarrass her. Two of his calls were taped. In one call, he asks Forman to meet with him and she asks him to stop calling. In another call, he and a friend attempt to convince Forman that compromising pictures of her really exist. Crone's own testimony and the taped calls corroborate Forman's testimony that Crone repeatedly threatened to circulate the compromising photographs of her if she did not meet with him. In contrast, the allegedly objectionable evidence concerned minimal drug usage, partially on doctor's orders, which occurred in the distant past. We are unable to conclude that the evidence of Crone's past steroid use worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage or that the result of the trial would have been different had this evidence not been admitted. See State v. Hill, 449 N.W.2d 626, 629 (Iowa 1989) (court concluded even if jury was erroneously instructed, there was no reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict); cf. United States v. Garbett, 867 F.2d 1132, 1135 (8th Cir.1989) (admission of defendant's prior conviction for possession of marijuana was harmless error in view of overwhelming evidence linking defendant to the crime charged). The case of State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1994), upon which Crone relies, is distinguishable. In Liggins, the trial court erroneously admitted evidence that the defendant was a drug dealer. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d at 188. We held the admission of this evidence was prejudicial because [i]t appealed to the jury's instinct to punish drug dealers. Id. at 188-89. We also observed the evidence against the defendant was not overwhelming. Id. The present case is different because there is abundant evidence of Crone's guilt. In addition, there is less prejudicial effect from evidence of past use of steroids as compared to a defendant's current occupation as a cocaine dealer. In sum, the evidence of Crone's guilt so outweighs any prejudicial effect from the admitted evidence that we cannot say the outcome of the trial would have been any different had the jury not known Crone had used steroids in the past. Therefore, Crone has failed to establish his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. AFFIRMED.