Court Opinion

ID: 9665567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:51:38.978596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:16.780423
License: Public Domain

*395Rawlings, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the result reached in this case but deem some comment appropriate with reference to Division II, relative to the showing of prior conviction for a felony as impeachment.
Admittedly the views expressed on this subject in the opinion are proper under the factual situation disclosed, being in addition thereto compatible with prior decisions of this court. But this does not necessarily make them right, reasonable or realistic.
On the subject at hand, Underhill’s Criminal Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 244, pages 601, 602, states: “Now that an ex-convict or a person convicted of a felony is competent as a witness, it remains to inquire to what extent the conviction may be shown as impeachment. As a matter of ordinary observation it is clear to most persons that the mere fact that a witness has been convicted of an infamous crime, or, in fact, of any offense, will not prevent him from telling the truth or from being believed in a case where he has no motive to deceive. It is not usually the facts of a man’s past which prompt him to give false testimony, except where the circumstances of the past create his present motives. * # # The rule that a prior conviction may be shown to impeach a witness, which is imbedded in the statutes of the various states, is a survival of the rule that a prior conviction was an insurmountable objection to the competency of the witness.”
Testimonial impeachment of a witness means the production of evidence affecting his credibility. See Gaskill v. Gahman, 255 Iowa 891, 896, 124 N.W.2d 533.
Stated otherwise the sole object of impeaching testimony is to discredit a witness by showing his character is such as tends to render what he says unworthy of belief.
In my humble opinion the conviction should be not too remote in point of time. See 2 Conrad, Trial Evidence, section 1142, page 313.
Under existing circumstances I am satisfied the majority opinion should stand, but respectfully submit that in the future *396the applicable rule should be modified in accord, with the views expressed above.
Mason and Becker, JJ., join in this special concurrence.