Pines v. District Court in and for Woodbury County
Decision Date | 27 July 1943 |
Docket Number | 46287. |
Citation | 10 N.W.2d 574,233 Iowa 1284 |
Parties | PINES v. DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WOODBURY COUNTY et al. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1943.[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Frank Margolin and Geo. G. Yeaman, both of Sioux City, for petitioner.
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., Don Hise, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward L. Moran, Co. Atty., and Robert E. Beebe, both of Sioux City for respondents..
This appeal involves the interpretation and the application of the provisions of section 14024 of the Code of 1939, which are as follows:
On May 7, 1942, during the May term of court, the grand jury of Woodbury County returned an indictment against the petitioner, charging him with the crime of larceny by artifice.At that time there was another indictment pending against him charging another offense, which had been returned on January 17, 1941.Mr. Margolin appeared of record as the attorney for the petitioner in the earlier indictment, and had procured one or more continuances for him.On May 15, 1942, the petitioner appeared in person at the sheriff's office and gave the required bond for his appearance.In conformity to the usual practice in the Woodbury District Court, no petit jury was called to try cases during the May, 1942, term, which continued to September 13th.The September term began on September 14, and closed on November 1, 1942.The petit jury for that term was discharged on October 14th.The November term began on the second day of that month and closed on January 10, 1943.The jury was discharged November 25, 1942.The January, 1943, term opened on January 11th.On the 4th day of February, 1943, in the January term, the petitioner, by his attorneys, one of whom was Mr. Margolin, filed a motion to dismiss the second indictment under the provisions of section 14024.Prior to the filing of this motion, and during the January term while the jury was present, the county attorney informed the petitioner's attorney, in the presence of Judge Prichard, who had charge of the criminal division, that the State was ready to proceed with the trial of the second indictment.Mr. Margolin then told the Court that he was going to file the motion to dismiss and that he was not asking that the jury be held.The motion is based only on section 14024, and no claim is made that the case had been continued for three terms of court.The State filed a resistance to the motion on February 11, 1943, on which day hearing was had, and a ruling followed on February 16th denying the motion.The court found, in substance, as follows: the facts respecting the terms of court as above stated; that Mr. Margolin represented the defendant(petitioner herein) on the first indictment, but was not employed by him on the second indictment until the January, 1943, term; that at each of the above-stated terms of court, in conformity to its rules, a day was set for the arraignment of all defendants against whom indictments had been returned, and who had been apprehended, and not previously arraigned, and that said day for arraignment was publicly announced in open court each term; that soon after the return of the indictment herein the defendant was apprehended and posted his appearance bond on May 15th, 1942; that he did not present himself for arraignment or plea at the arraignment day in the May, 1942, term, nor at any subsequent arraignment date, and that he has not yet been arraigned or entered a plea to the indictment, nor moved against the form or substance of the indictment; the defendant at no time asked for a trial of his case, and at no time placed himself in position that a trial of his case was possible; that the county attorney and Mr. Margolin, representing this defendant, had several conferences relative to the possibility of a plea by the defendant in the case pending under the first indictment, and during these conferences the second indictment was mentioned, although it was made clear that Mr. Margolin was not employed to represent defendant therein; the county attorney, because of said conversations regarding a possible plea, felt it inadvisable to press the second criminal case until such possibilities of a plea had come to a head; and the second cause was continued from term to term under a rule that all cases on the calendar not disposed of at the close of a term of court should be continued to the next term and that good and sufficient causes for such continuances existed.It was the conclusion of the court that arraignment having been provided for the defendant's convenience and information, and his trial being impossible until after his arraignment or waiver thereof, and defendant failing to avail himself of arraignment was not in a position to complain of failure of trial during the term next succeeding the term at which the indictment was returned.The court for the reasons mentioned therefore denied the motion for dismissal.
I.One of the many complaints of the common people of early England which finally resulted in the charters laying the foundations of their political and personal liberties, were those against the harshness of the criminal laws, both substantive and procedural.Bail was beyond the reach of many, and seldom permitted, with the result that the accused often languished in jails for lorg periods before being brought to trial.It was because of this and other oppressions that the Bill of Rights became the first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution.The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, ***."Since the first ten amendments were intended to operate solely on the Federal government, and the Sixth Amendment had no application to proceedings in state courts(Brown v. New...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Hottle v. District Court in and for Clinton County
...the defendant is serving a sentence in the penitentiary for another crime." This same quotation was approved in our opinion in Pines v. District Court, supra. It pertinent here for Keefe was serving a sentence for another crime when he filed his motion to dismiss the indictment. In Ex parte......
-
Dailey v. Pooley Lumber Co.
... ... POOLEY LUMBER CO. et al. No. 46253.Supreme Court of IowaJuly 27, 1943 [10 N.W.2d 570] ... [Copyrighted ... ...
-
State v. Small
... ... SMALL. No. 46256.Supreme Court of IowaOctober 19, 1943 ... [233 ... months in the county jail and as a further part of the ... judgment the ... ...