City of Ottumwa v. Stickel
| Decision Date | 06 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 35161 |
| Citation | 191 N.W. 797,195 Iowa 988 |
| Parties | CITY OF OTTUMWA, Appellee, v. I. M. STICKEL, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED MAY 12, 1923.
Appeal from Wapello District Court.--SENECA CORNELL, Judge.
APPEAL from a judgment of conviction on an information charging the defendant with operating and maintaining a disorderly house as defined by an ordinance of the city of Ottumwa, Iowa.
Reversed.
W. W Epps, for appellant.
W. A Hunt, City Solicitor, for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The defendant was accused on information in the police court of Ottumwa, Iowa of the crime of operating a disorderly house in that on a certain date in the city of Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa he "did unlawfully and willfully keep a disorderly house, where men and women met and occupied the same rooms for immoral purposes."
On the same date (February 13, 1922) a second information was filed intended to be a substitution for the original. The new accusation reads "that the defendant did unlawfully and willfully maintain, own, conduct, keep, and operate a disorderly house." From the judgment on conviction defendant appealed to the district court of Wapello County, Iowa.
On April 19, 1922, and prior to the taking of testimony, an amended information was filed in the district court. This was done to make the information more specific, and to conform to the language of the ordinance defining the crime charged. Objection was made to the amended information for the reason that it was not the information upon which the defendant had been tried and convicted in the police court, and it was contended that upon appeal to the district court the information was not subject to amendment. The trial court overruled the motion to strike and properly so.
It is not open to question that an information may be amended after appeal to the district court. Town of Lovilia v. Cobb, 126 Iowa 557, 102 N.W. 496.
The defendant then filed a motion for continuance on the ground that new conditions were introduced by the amendment to the information. There is no merit in this claim, and the court correctly ruled. The filing of an amendment will not alone authorize a continuance. The trial on appeal in the district court was a new trial, and the parties were placed in the same position as if no trial had been had. State v. Dow, 74 Iowa 141, 37 N.W. 114.
Further objection was made to the information as amended in that it failed to give the street and number of the house or building in which the defendant maintained, owned, and conducted the disorderly house. This motion was properly overruled. The crime charged is against the person, and not the house, and the indictment or information is sufficient if it charges the offense as committed within the county. State v. Shaw, 35 Iowa 575; State v. Des Moines Union R. Co. 137 Iowa 570, 115 N.W. 232.
But one serious question is presented on this appeal. Does the evidence establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt? Did the court err in refusing defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and in overruling his motion for a new trial?
Whether or not a place is a disorderly house is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury upon all the evidence presented, but there must be that quantum of evidence presented which sustains the allegations of the information beyond a reasonable doubt. A disorderly house is generally defined to be a house or building in which people abide or to which they resort to the disturbance of the neighborhood or for purposes which are injurious to the public morals, health, convenience or safety. Such a house constituted a public nuisance at common law, and the ordinance in question is sufficiently broad to incorporate the essential elements of this definition. See, also, State v. Pierce, 65 Iowa 85, 21 N.W. 195; State v. Hunter, 173 Iowa 638, 641, 155 N.W. 961.
The defendant in the instant case was the owner and proprietor of a house or building that was recognized under the law of Iowa as an hotel. He was duly licensed as a keeper thereof, and it was and had been subject to inspection by the proper authorities. Having been charged with the crime of maintaining a disorderly house, it was necessary for the State under the information filed to establish that he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial