State v. Williams

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Williams

193 N.W.2d 529, 1972 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 989

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJanuary 14, 1972

Docket54359

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 193 N.W.2d 529 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 193 N.W.2d 529, 1972 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 989 (iowa 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged by county attorney’s information with the offense of selling beer to a minor, in violation of § 124.20, The Code. He was convicted after jury trial and now appeals. We affirm.

The sole error assigned by defendant is trial court’s failure to sustain his motion for directed verdict. Grounds of the motion relied on are 1) lack of evidence to prove defendant’s knowledge of the beer purchaser’s minority, and 2) defective information because the word “knowingly”, an element of the crime now essential under § 124.20, was omitted.

I. This appeal was taken before publication of our recent cases construing § 124.20, amended by 61st General Assembly Chapter ISO, Section 4 (1965) to require knowledge by the defendant that the beer purchaser is a minor. We have since held a jury question is generated on this element when the jury observes the minor purchaser as a witness. State v. Lelchook, 186 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1971); State v. Straw, 185 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1971). Here the minor took the stand and identified defendant as the one who sold her the beer. The above cases are controlling; the case was rightly submitted to the jury.

II. In considering the alleged defective information, § 777.3, The Code, is pertinent:

“All objections to the indictment relating to matters of substance and form which might be raised by demurrer shall be deemed waived if not so raised by the defendant before the jury is sworn on the trial of the case.”

A county attorney’s information shall be considered and construed in the same manner as an indictment. Sections 769.12, 769.13, The Code; Lamb v. Davis, 244 Iowa 231, 56 N.W.2d 481 (1953). The alleged omission in the instant information was first asserted by defendant in his motion for directed verdict. This was not done in the manner nor within the time required by the above statutes. The claimed defect is therefore waived. See State v. Medina, 165 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1969); City of Des Moines v. Pugh, 231 Iowa 1283, 2 N.W.2d 754 (1942).

There being no error, the case is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged by county attorney’s information with the offense of selling beer to a minor, in violation of § 124.20, The Code. He was convicted after jury trial and now appeals. We affirm.

The sole error assigned by defendant is trial court’s failure to sustain his motion for directed verdict. Grounds of the motion relied on are 1) lack of evidence to prove defendant’s knowledge of the beer purchaser’s minority, and 2) defective information because the word “knowingly”, an element of the crime now essential under § 124.20, was omitted.

I. This appeal was taken before publication of our recent cases construing § 124.20, amended by 61st General Assembly Chapter ISO, Section 4 (1965) to require knowledge by the defendant that the beer purchaser is a minor. We have since held a jury question is generated on this element when the jury observes the minor purchaser as a witness. State v. Lelchook, 186 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1971); State v. Straw, 185 N.W.2d 812 (Iowa 1971). Here the minor took the stand and identified defendant as the one who sold her the beer. The above cases are controlling; the case was rightly submitted to the jury.

II. In considering the alleged defective information, § 777.3, The Code, is pertinent:

“All objections to the indictment relating to matters of substance and form which might be raised by demurrer shall be deemed waived if not so raised by the defendant before the jury is sworn on the trial of the case.”

A county attorney’s information shall be considered and construed in the same manner as an indictment. Sections 769.12, 769.13, The Code; Lamb v. Davis, 244 Iowa 231, 56 N.W.2d 481 (1953). The alleged omission in the instant information was first asserted by defendant in his motion for directed verdict. This was not done in the manner nor within the time required by the above statutes. The claimed defect is therefore waived. See State v. Medina, 165 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1969); City of Des Moines v. Pugh, 231 Iowa 1283, 2 N.W.2d 754 (1942).

There being no error, the case is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 N.W.2d 529, 1972 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-iowa-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack