State v. Caldwell
1995 WL 134864, 1995 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 58, 529 N.W.2d 282 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The foundational requirement for admitting reputation testimony that it must be derived from a "general cross-section of the community" is concerned with the variety of the sources of the comments, not the uniform nature (e.g., all negative) of the comments themselves.
Facts:
- Waterloo police officers Jeffrey Harrington and Mark Meyer received a tip and located Phillip Glenn Caldwell, Jr. in the parking lot of a convenience store where he worked.
- Officer Harrington approached Caldwell, grabbed his arm, and asked him to place his hands on his vehicle.
- Caldwell initially complied but then broke away and ran, with Officer Meyer pursuing him on foot into a railroad yard.
- During the chase, Officer Meyer claimed he saw Caldwell holding a white object in his hand.
- After catching Caldwell, Officer Meyer alleged that Caldwell threw an object into a nearby area of dirt and weeds.
- A search of that area by other officers resulted in the discovery of a plastic baggie containing 23.23 grams of cocaine base.
- Caldwell denied possessing or throwing any drugs, testifying that he ran because he was scared of being caught driving an uninsured vehicle that his father had instructed him not to use.
- Caldwell testified he was wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt, neither of which had pockets.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a trial information in district court charging Phillip Glenn Caldwell, Jr. with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp.
- During a jury trial, Caldwell attempted to call three witnesses to testify about Officer Mark Meyer's reputation for untruthfulness.
- The State objected to the testimony, arguing a lack of proper foundation.
- The district court sustained the State's objections and excluded the testimony of all three witnesses.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges, and the court entered a judgment of conviction.
- Caldwell, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the foundational requirement for reputation testimony, that it must be based on comments from a 'general cross-section of the community,' focus on the nature of the comments made or on the variety of the sources of those comments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McGiverin
No, the requirement focuses on the variety of sources, not the nature of the comments. The purpose of requiring comments from a 'general cross-section of the community' is to ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the reputation evidence. This purpose is served if the testimony is based on comments from a representative number of diverse persons who know the target witness through their life and work. The trial court erred by focusing on the fact that all comments were negative and from people who had adverse contact with Officer Meyer; this focus on the 'nature' of the comments was an untenable ground for excluding the evidence. The court then analyzed each proposed witness and found that Ray Dial's testimony, based on comments from a wide variety of community members (students, different races, ages, and genders), met the foundation, whereas the other two witnesses' testimony, based on comments from only a few friends, did not. The exclusion of Dial's testimony was a prejudicial abuse of discretion because Officer Meyer's credibility was central to the State's case.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a crucial aspect of the foundation required for reputation evidence under Iowa Rule of Evidence 608(a). It establishes that the 'cross-section' requirement refers to the sociological diversity of the sources, not the substantive diversity of their opinions. This decision prevents the exclusion of reputation evidence for untruthfulness simply because the comments uniformly arise from negative interactions, which is often the case when a witness's character is at issue. The ruling provides clearer guidance for trial courts and makes it more feasible for defendants to challenge the credibility of key witnesses, like police officers, whose community interactions may frequently be adversarial.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Caldwell