Court Opinion

ID: 9585264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:23.314671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:28.114102
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(dissenting).
Garza had been subpoenaed and did appear earlier pursuant to a county attorney’s subpoena. Garza had been subpoenaed to appear for trial four weeks earlier. She was to appear at 11:00 a.m. At 3:45 p.m. the county attorney advised the court when she failed to appear at 11:00 a.m. he had law enforcement agencies attempt to ascertain her whereabouts. There was no one at her former residence. She had given the county attorney her sister’s phone number. When called her sister said she had left the country and was somewhere in Mexico with her parents.
*205Defendant’s trial attorney stated on the record: . I am not questioning on behalf of Mr. Reddick the unavailability of the witness_” Also, he later said: “I think clearly the witness is unavailable. ...”
I first determine there was a good faith effort made to have the witness at trial and she was unavailable. See State v. Wright, 378 N.W.2d 727, 730-31 (Iowa App.1985). Furthermore, the issue of unavailability was conceded by defendant in the trial court and is not properly before us.
The defendant objected to the deposition,1 if it is a deposition, because he contended the state should have used their powers to keep the witness in Iowa. However, the defendant failed to argue this issue on appeal.

. In State v. Cuevas, 322 N.W.2d 910, 912 (Iowa App.1982) we determined RCP 144(c) on use of depositions in trial must be interpreted so as to require in addition to the requirement of the civil rule that the state must show a good faith effort to obtain the witnesses presence at trial.