Court Opinion

ID: 9689999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:51:35.111866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:53.186159
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(specially concurring).
The testimony defendant sought to admit is in the record through the following offer of proof:
MR. NICKERSON: The answer being, based on your experience and your investigation in this case and the experience I spoke of, specifically, experience as an investigating detective, what was your conclusion as to the identity of the person who shot Darryl Grady?
OFFICER ROWLEY: Lorenzo White.
I do not agree with the majority that this opinion went directly to the credibility of witnesses and essentially passed on the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
It is clear a witness should not be permitted to express an opinion as to the ultimate fact of the accused’s guilt or innocence. State v. Oppedal, 232 N.W.2d 517, 524 (Iowa 1975). The rationale of the rule was set forth in Grismore v. Consolidated Products. Co., 232 Iowa 328, 361, 5 N.W.2d 646, 663 (1942), as follows:
But the reason is that such matters are not subjects of opinion testimony. They are mixed questions of law and fact. When a standard, or a measure, or a capacity has been fixed by law, no witness, whether expert or nonexpert, nor however qualified, is permitted to express an opinion as to whether or not the person or the conduct in question measures up to that standard. On that question the court must instruct the jury as to the law, and the jury must draw its own conclusion from the evidence.
If the officer had said, “Based on my investigation it is my opinion beyond any reasonable doubt the defendant is not guilty of second-degree murder,” then I would agree with the majority. All the officer did was offer an opinion as to who shot the gun. The *42officer is testifying as to one fact only. The fact White shot a gun does not establish anyone’s innocence or guilt nor is it an opinion of innocence or guilt. It is only the opinion of the officer as to one fact. State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d 1, 6-7 (Iowa 1982) (officer’s testimony defendant’s possession of notebook and six separate bags of marijuana fit method of operation of person selling marijuana for profit); State v. Knudtson, 195 N.W.2d 698, 699-701 (Iowa 1972) (in burglary case officer’s opinion tools found at scene and in defendant’s care were type of tools that could be used in burglary); State v. Jiles, 258 Iowa 1324, 1328-32, 142 N.W.2d 451, 454-56 (1966) (opinion of FBI agent in his opinion a weapon was three or four feet from the victim when the shot was fired and fatal bullet came from a certain revolver was admissible).
In State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154 (Iowa 1990), the following question in an operating a vehicle while intoxicated case was asked:
Q. Based upon your observations and the tests that you had performed upon Mr. Murphy, ... did you make a determination as to whether he was under the influence of an intoxicant? A. It was my belief that he was under the influence and impaired.
Id. at 155.
The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to strike and affirmed on appeal even though defendant argued it amounted to an impermissible expression of the officer’s opinion on the ultimate issue of guilt.
The court in Murphy, said, “it has long been held that a witness, either lay or expert, may testify to an ‘ultimate fact which the jury must determine’ ” and said a contrary rule would lead to the absurd result of potentially excluding the most relevant testimony available. Id. at 156. The court went on to say that is not to say a witness may be permitted to testify regarding a defendant’s guilt or innocence and testimony about the legal standard of proof, combined with a recitation of the elements of the offense, clearly would invade the province of the jury. Id.
Nor did the statement say a witness was or was not telling the truth. It just said that after the officer made an investigation he determined, “White shot the gun.”
I concur though with the majority. We are bound to affirm the trial court for any reason whether argued or not. See State v. Vincik, 436 N.W.2d 350, 354 (Iowa 1989). I find the foundation for the opinion to be such that the trial court was justified in refusing to admit the opinion.