State v. Chalfant

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Chalfant

219 N.W.2d 2, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1363

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedMay 22, 1974

DocketNo. 56008

StatusPublished

This text of 219 N.W.2d 2 (State v. Chalfant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Chalfant, 219 N.W.2d 2, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1363 (iowa 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged, tried, convicted and fined $100 for failure to abate a rat harborage in violation of county health regulations promulgated under Code section 137.6(2). He appeals. We affirm.

Defendant assigns one error — his motion to dismiss, made at the close of State’s evidence should have been sustained. The motion was not renewed at the close of all evidence.

We have consistently held the trial court is not required to sustain a motion to dismiss or for directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence in chief. No error can be predicated upon the court’s failure to sustain the motion. State v. Warren, Iowa 1974, 212 N.W.2d 509, 516. Defendant waives any error by failing to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. State v. Johnson, Iowa 1974, 216 N.W.2d 337; State v. Houston, Iowa 1973, 206 N.W.2d 687, 692; State v. Tokatlian, 203 N.W.2d 116, 119.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged, tried, convicted and fined $100 for failure to abate a rat harborage in violation of county health regulations promulgated under Code section 137.6(2). He appeals. We affirm.

Defendant assigns one error — his motion to dismiss, made at the close of State’s evidence should have been sustained. The motion was not renewed at the close of all evidence.

We have consistently held the trial court is not required to sustain a motion to dismiss or for directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence in chief. No error can be predicated upon the court’s failure to sustain the motion. State v. Warren, Iowa 1974, 212 N.W.2d 509, 516. Defendant waives any error by failing to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. State v. Johnson, Iowa 1974, 216 N.W.2d 337; State v. Houston, Iowa 1973, 206 N.W.2d 687, 692; State v. Tokatlian, 203 N.W.2d 116, 119.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.W.2d 2, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chalfant-iowa-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack