Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 8-142 / 06-1702 Filed April 30, 2008

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WALLACE NORMAN GALBREATH, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Silvia A. Lewis, District Associate Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction for domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.

Philip B. Mears of Mears Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, Janet M. Lyness, County Attorney, Deborah Farmer Minot, Assistant County Attorney, and Thomas D. Farnsworth, Student Legal Intern, for appellee.

Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller, J., and Brown, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2007).

2 BROWN, S.J. Wallace Galbreath was found guilty by a jury of domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. He appeals his conviction, asserting error in evidentiary rulings by the district court. We affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings

On April 24, 2006, Lynn Toussaint was living in an intimate relationship with Wallace Galbreath in a home in Coralville, Iowa. Also living in the home were Maria Medina, Manuel Reveles, and Johnny Hunter. At the trial Toussaint testified that throughout that day Medina and Reveles were arguing. After 11:00 p.m. Toussaint attempted to intervene, and Galbreath told her to mind her own f***ing business. Galbreath then struck her in the face four times. Toussaint believed her nose was broken. She walked about two blocks to a bar and asked the bartender to call the police. Coralville police officer Jackie Rich responded to the call. Toussaint told her she had been struck by her boyfriend. Officer Rich saw Toussaint was

bleeding and "[h]er nose had an obvious deformity on the bridge and needed to be looked at." She took Toussaint to a hospital for medical assistance. Office r Rich contacted Galbreath, and Galbreath told her he had no idea what had occurred. Galbreath presented the testimony of Hunter, who stated Toussaint was very intoxicated on April 24, 2006. He stated that at about 8:30 p.m. he saw Toussaint fall in the patio area of the home and hit her head on a bench. He testified he then went to bed.

3 Galbreath was charged with domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code sections 236.2, 708.1(1) and 708.2A(2)(b) (2005). The jury returned a verdict finding Galbreath guilty. Galbreath filed a motion for new trial, claiming the district court improperly permitted the State to ask Toussaint and officer Rich an unusually high number of leading questions. The district court denied the motion for new trial. Galbreath was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail, with 150 days suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years. A no-contact order was entered, and Galbreath was ordered to participate in a batterer's education program. Galbreath appeals his conviction. II. Leading Questions

Galbreath contends the district court abused its discretion by overruling his objections to the prosecutor's use of leading questions to Toussaint. Although Galbreath asserts most of the questions asked by the State were leading, defense counsel only objected to eight questions asked of Toussaint on the ground they were leading questions. We conclude Galbreath failed to

preserve error on those questions to which no objection was made. See State v. Jefferson, 574 N.W.2d 268, 278 (Iowa 1997). Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.611(c) provides: Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop that witness's testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

4 "Where the question assumes any fact which is in controversy, so the answer may really or apparently admit that fact, it is leading." N.W.2d 700, 713 (Iowa 1974). The district court has considerable discretion in admitting or excluding the answers to leading questions. State v. Leonard, 243 N.W.2d 887, 891 (Iowa 1976). In order to justify a reversal there must be a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Mueller, 344 N.W.2d 262, 266 (Iowa 1983). This is because the district court is in a better position "to observe the circumstances that may justify the asking of leading questions." Id. We question whether some of the questions were in fact leading. In Giltner v. Stark, 219

particular the following questions do not necessarily suggest the answer to the question so that the answer was apparent: "Had you stayed at Mr. Galbraith's house on the night of April 23rd?" "When you woke up, were Mr. Reveles and Ms. Medina at the house?" "At any time during the day of April 24th, or the early hours of April 25, did you ever strike Mr. Wallace?" "Did you have blood on any of your clothing?" Other questions might have been leading, but they primarily recapped evidence already in the record. Toussaint was asked: "And was that

relationship, did that last about as long as

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. WALLACE NORMAN GALBREATH, Defendant

Iowa Law