State v. Daly

Supreme Court of Iowa · 2001 · Evidence

623 N.W.2d 799 (Ia. 2001)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 609Rule 403impeachment by prior convictionmotion in liminepreservation of errorwaiverprobative value vs prejudicial effect

Facts

Before trial, Daly moved in limine to exclude evidence of his 1993 convictions for the same narcotics offenses, relying in part on Iowa Rule of Evidence 609. The district court definitively overruled the motion as to rule 609 and reserved only the rule 404(b) issue. At trial, after the court excluded the surrounding circumstances of the prior crimes under rule 404(b), Daly preemptively testified on direct examination that he had pleaded guilty in 1993 to possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, failure to possess a drug stamp, and possession of marijuana. The current charges were for those identical three offenses.

Issue

Whether Daly preserved and retained his objection to the admission of his prior convictions for impeachment under Iowa Rule of Evidence 609 when he preemptively disclosed them after an adverse definitive ruling, and whether the district court properly admitted those identical prior convictions under rule 609.

Rule

When a motion in limine is resolved definitively so that it is beyond question the challenged evidence will be admitted at trial, no further trial objection is required to preserve error. A defendant does not waive appellate review of such a ruling by preemptively introducing the prior convictions on direct examination to lessen their impact. Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1), evidence that an accused has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year shall be admitted only if the court determines that the probative value of admitting the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused. In making that determination, the court should consider factors including the nature of the conviction, its bearing on veracity, the age of the conviction, and its tendency to improperly influence the jury.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony theft trial in Des Moines, Noah Bennett moved in limine to bar impeachment with a prior felony conviction if he testified. After hearing argument, the judge said on the record, "My ruling is final: if Noah testifies, the conviction comes in for impeachment," and defense counsel asked whether any further objection was necessary; the judge answered, "No." At trial, Noah testified and did not object again when the issue arose on cross-examination.

On appeal, the prosecution argues Noah failed to preserve error because he did not renew his objection at trial. How should the appellate court rule?

Explanation. When a motion in limine is resolved in such a way that it is beyond question whether the challenged evidence will be admitted, the ruling has the effect of a final evidentiary ruling and no renewed objection at trial is required. That is the preservation rule applied in the majority opinion. The prosecutor's categorical claim that a contemporaneous objection is always necessary is incorrect where the trial court has made a definitive ruling.