Court Opinion

ID: 9691233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:18:14.674644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:13.815450
License: Public Domain

*862SACKETT, Judge
specially concurring.
The general rule in Iowa is one of liberality in the admission of opinion evidence. See State v. Halstead, 862 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Iowa 1985); State v. Hummell, 228 N.W.2d 77, 82 (Iowa 1975). I cannot agree with the majority’s blanket assertion that Bartolla’s training was not sufficient to allow him to testify had defendant not been diabetic the incident probably would not have happened.
However, I agree with, the majority because I find, as did the majority, that defendant has failed to meet the difficult standard of making a clear showing the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit the opinion evidence. State v. Halstead, 362 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Iowa 1985); State v. Morrison, 323 N.W.2d 254, 256 (Iowa 1982). I also agree with the majority that defendant failed to prove the elements necessary to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.