Turecek rule in Iowa

2022But State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219, 225 (Iowa 1990), prevents the State from “plac[ing] a witness on the stand who is expected to give unfavorable testimony and then, in the guise of impeachment, offer evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.” Ackiss argues that this is exactly what the State did in his case when they called his fiancée to the stand, and so his counsel should have made a Turecek objection.

2021Recently, in State v. Swift, this court unanimously reaffirmed that the Turecek rule, as presently understood, is a limitation on the government’s ability to call and impeach witnesses. 955 N.W.2d 876 , 880 (Iowa 2021) (“But in Turecek, we held the prosecution may not ‘place a witness on the stand who is expected to give unfavorable testimony and then, in the guise of impeachment, offer evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Turecek, 456 N.W.2d at 225 )); id. (“We observed in Turecek that the State’s right to impeach its own witness under rule 5.607 ‘is to be us

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2022See State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (“The Turecek rule is a shield designed to prevent the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence, but it cannot be used to prevent the State from using admissible evidence to impeach a witness.

2022See State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (“The Turecek rule is a shield designed to prevent the introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence, but it cannot be used to prevent the State from using admissible evidence to impeach a witness.

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021Recently, in State v. Swift, this court unanimously reaffirmed that the Turecek rule, as presently understood, is a limitation on the government’s ability to call and impeach witnesses. 955 N.W.2d 876 , 880 (Iowa 2021) (“But in Turecek, we held the prosecution may not ‘place a witness on the stand who is expected to give unfavorable testimony and then, in the guise of impeachment, offer evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Turecek, 456 N.W.2d at 225 )); id. (“We observed in Turecek that the State’s right to impeach its own witness under rule 5.607 ‘is to be us

2021Recently, in State v. Swift, this court unanimously reaffirmed that the Turecek rule, as presently understood, is a limitation on the government’s ability to call and impeach witnesses. 955 N.W.2d 876 , 880 (Iowa 2021) (“But in Turecek, we held the prosecution may not ‘place a witness on the stand who is expected to give unfavorable testimony and then, in the guise of impeachment, offer evidence which is otherwise inadmissible.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Turecek, 456 N.W.2d at 225 )); id. (“We observed in Turecek that the State’s right to impeach its own witness under rule 5.607 ‘is to be us

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2021See, e.g., State v. Russell, 893 N.W.2d 307, 316 (Iowa 2017) (discussing the Turecek rule as applied against the State); State v. Tompkins, 859 N.W.2d 631, 639 (Iowa 2015) (applying the rule to the government); State v. Werts, 677 N.W.2d 734, 737 (Iowa 2004) (discussing Turecek as a limitation on the “the State”); State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995) (“However, where the State calls a witness expecting the witness will give unfavorable testimony, and then in the guise of impeachment, offers evidence otherwise inadmissible, the court should exclude the evidence.”); State v. Rojas, 52

2022See State v. Kuhse, 937 N.W.2d 622 , 628 (Iowa 2020) (“The crux of the prejudice component rests on whether the defendant 10 has shown ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))).

2022See State v. Kuhse, 937 N.W.2d 622 , 628 (Iowa 2020) (“The crux of the prejudice component rests on whether the defendant 10 has shown ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984))).

2021There is no Turecek violation here because we find the videotape was admissible under rule 803(24).” (citations omitted)); State v. Kone, 557 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“Kone contends the State’s impeachment of Close at trial established a violation of the rule set forth in State v. Turecek and reiterated within State v. Tracy. . . .

2021There is no Turecek violation here because we find the videotape was admissible under rule 803(24).” (citations omitted)); State v. Kone, 557 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (“Kone contends the State’s impeachment of Close at trial established a violation of the rule set forth in State v. Turecek and reiterated within State v. Tracy. . . .

2021Parties should not “be put to the choice between the Scylla of forgoing impeachment and the Charybdis of not calling at all a witness from whom it expects to elicit genuinely helpful evidence.” United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1193 (7th Cir. 1984).

2021Parties should not “be put to the choice between the Scylla of forgoing impeachment and the Charybdis of not calling at all a witness from whom it expects to elicit genuinely helpful evidence.” United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1193 (7th Cir. 1984).

2018See State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219, 255 (Iowa 1990). 7 “Challenges to the sufficiency of evidence are reviewed for errors at law.” State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637 , 639–40 (Iowa 2002).

2018See State v. Turecek, 456 N.W.2d 219, 255 (Iowa 1990). 7 “Challenges to the sufficiency of evidence are reviewed for errors at law.” State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637 , 639–40 (Iowa 2002).

2017Our review of the district court’s decision on a motion for a new trial is for abuse of discretion, see State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006), though our review of an alleged Turecek violation is for the correction of errors at law, see State v. Wixom, 599 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“[A]ll Turecek hearsay violations are reviewed for errors at law.”).

2017Our review of the district court’s decision on a motion for a new trial is for abuse of discretion, see State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006), though our review of an alleged Turecek violation is for the correction of errors at law, see State v. Wixom, 599 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“[A]ll Turecek hearsay violations are reviewed for errors at law.”).

2017Our review of the district court’s decision on a motion for a new trial is for abuse of discretion, see State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006), though our review of an alleged Turecek violation is for the correction of errors at law, see State v. Wixom, 599 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“[A]ll Turecek hearsay violations are reviewed for errors at law.”).

2017Our review of the district court’s decision on a motion for a new trial is for abuse of discretion, see State v. Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006), though our review of an alleged Turecek violation is for the correction of errors at law, see State v. Wixom, 599 N.W.2d 481, 484 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999) (“[A]ll Turecek hearsay violations are reviewed for errors at law.”).

1992To establish a claim that trial counsel was ineffective, in derogation of one's sixth amendment right to counsel, two elements must be shown: "(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted therefrom." Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa 1984).

1992To establish a claim that trial counsel was ineffective, in derogation of one’s sixth amendment right to counsel, two elements must be shown: “(1) counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted therefrom.” Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa 1984).