Opinion ID: 1722560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to produce.

Text: Defendant's motion to produce and amendment thereto demanded inter alia, that the State produce all information known to it concerning numerous named and unnamed individuals mentioned or otherwise described in the course of a loosely-controlled and meandering grand jury investigation. The implication to be derived from the motion is that the grand jury transcript contains no exculpatory information but the response to the motion, if granted, might develop something useful. Evidence adduced from the prosecuting attorneys at the remand hearing tended to show there was no exculpatory information available in these instances. We agree with trial court, however, that the motion plunged beyond the limits of our remand order. The motion was properly overruled on this ground. Hetherington Letter Co. v. O. F. Paulson Const. Co., supra, 192 N.W.2d at 809; State v. Mayhew, supra, 183 N.W.2d at 725; Kuhlmann v. Persinger, supra, 261 Iowa at 468, 154 N.W.2d at 864. Our affirmance on the first appeal was based on the condition exculpatory evidence had not been suppressed. The record now demonstrates there was no suppression. We affirm the judgment and sentence entered below. AFFIRMED. All Justices concur, except REES, J., who takes no part.