Court Opinion

ID: 9673872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:19:52.955321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.419308
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result and in all but division VI of the court’s opinion. I am unable to agree with the basis of division VI because I do not believe defendant alerted the trial court to the ground of his objection to the circumstantial evidence instruction.
Under rule 196, R.C.P., an objection to the court’s final draft of instructions or its failure to give requested instructions must specify “the matter objected to and on what grounds.” In the present case, defendant “objected” by requesting that the uniform instruction on circumstantial evidence be given instead , of the court’s instruction. I agree that this alerted the trial court to the matter objected to, but I do not believe it advised the court of the ground of the objection.
In an analogous situation in Crist v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 255 Iowa 615, 123 N.W.2d 424 (1963), this court held the objection presented nothing for review.
I would reject defendant’s assignment of error in division VI on this basis.
LeGRÁND and HARRIS, JJ., join in this special concurrence.