MAHAN, P.J.
Defendant Nahshon Caine Platt appeals his jury convictions for possession with the intent to deliver or manufacture a schedule II controlled substance and two counts of possession of precursors with intent to use the product to manufacture. On appeal Platt contends his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to object to evidence concerning Platt's financial affidavit; and (2) failing to object to the fingerprint exhibit. We reverse and remand for new trial.
Platt was convicted of one count of possession with the intent to deliver or manufacture a schedule II controlled substance and two counts of possession of precursors with intent to use the product to manufacture in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(b)(7), (4)(b), and (4)(c) (1999). Platt was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of twenty-five years on the possession with intent to deliver or manufacture charge and concurrent indeterminate five-year terms on the remaining possession of precursor charges. Platt appeals.
Platt claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the fingerprint exhibit admitted into the record. We agree. In addition to the actual fingerprints, the front of the fingerprint exhibit listed Platt's address, social security number, date of birth, date of arrest, physical description, and his signature. The inclusion of that information would not be sufficient to establish reversible error. However, the front of the fingerprint exhibit also listed Platt's DCI number as well as a summary of the charges against him, including their classification as class B and class D felonies. The back of the fingerprint exhibit included a description of Platt's scars and tattoos as well as a heading that read, "BASIS FOR CAUTION INDICATOR-ICO." Under this heading, was a notation that read, "Known to go armed." We conclude that it was error for the fingerprint exhibit to go to the jury room. State v. Brooks, 540 N.W.2d 270, 272 (Iowa 1995); State v. Shultz, 231 N.W.2d 585, 587 (Iowa 1975). In addition, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability that said error undermines confidence in the outcome of Platt's trial. Osborne v. State, 573 N.W.2d 917, 922 (Iowa 1998). As such, Platt's counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing said exhibit to go to the jury with the objectionable information. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984); Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001).
The State concedes that this information was provided to the jury, and argues that this objectionable information may have gone unnoticed. However, our appellate review in this case does not give us the luxury of making such a presumption. We therefore reverse and remand for new trial. Our decision makes it unnecessary to consider Platt's claim concerning his trial counsel's failure to object to the introduction of his financial affidavit.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.