State v. Chalfant

219 N.W.2d 2, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1363
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided May 22, 1974·No. No. 56008·Published

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

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

219 N.W.2d 2 (State v. Chalfant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Johnson
216 N.W.2d 337 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1974)
State v. Houston
206 N.W.2d 687 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1973)
State v. Tokatlian
203 N.W.2d 116 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1972)
State v. Warren
212 N.W.2d 509 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1973)