State v. Wolfe

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ware

    338 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1983)   Cited 64 times
    Reviewing the record de novo to make an independent evaluation of the circumstances to determine whether there was an abuse of discretion

    Albert contends that the trial court erred in allowing the statement to be admitted into evidence and read to the jury. He asserts that once Cady admitted making the statement, the purpose of impeachment was completed and the statement could not further be used for any purpose whatsoever. For authority he relies upon the following language in State v. Wolfe, 316 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa Ct.App. 1981): Once the witness's attention is drawn to the prior statement, if he admits making the prior inconsistent statement, then that prior statement is not admissible. But if he denies making the prior statement, or is evasive in his answer, or cannot remember making it at all, then the statement may be admitted into evidence for purposes of impeachment.

  2. Richter v. State

    No. 15-1800 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017)

    See Iowa R. Evid. 5.608; State v. Wolfe, 316 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981) ("[M]atters upon which impeachment is attempted must be relevant to some issue in the case."). Even if it could be shown, somehow, Englert offered untruthful testimony at the prior trial, one specific incident of misconduct is insufficient to prove "character" for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

  3. State v. Berry

    549 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 14 times
    Finding malice from defendant's conduct after the stabbing

    See John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence ยง 37 (4th ed. 1992). If the witness admits to making the prior statement, no further testimony is necessary and the impeachment is successful. State v. Wolfe, 316 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Iowa App. 1981). If the statement is not admitted or specifically denied, however, extrinsic evidence of the statement is necessary to impeach. In this situation, the witness must also be given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement.

  4. State v. Oshinbanjo

    361 N.W.2d 318 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 10 times
    Noting the proper foundation must be laid before a prior inconsistent statement is admitted, including alerting the witness "to the nature of the prior statement or time and place of its making" and giving "the witness an opportunity to admit or deny making the statement"

    Id. If the witness admits making the statement, then the statement is not admissible; but if he or she denies making the prior statement or cannot remember making it, then the statement may be admitted for purposes of impeachment. State v. Wolfe, 316 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Iowa Ct.App. 1981). A showing of a proper foundation is a prerequisite to a successful appeal on the grounds that the trial court excluded a prior inconsistent statement. State v. Pilcher, 158 N.W.2d 631, 636-37 (Iowa 1968).