State v. Alexander

Decision Date21 July 1982
Docket NumberNo. 66766,66766
Citation322 N.W.2d 71
CourtIowa Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Robert Lee ALEXANDER, Appellant.

Francis C. Hoyt, Jr., Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Joseph P. Weeg, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William E. Davis, Scott County Atty., for appellee.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, HARRIS, and LARSON, JJ.

REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the State produced sufficient evidence to convict defendant of going armed in a city, a violation of Iowa Code section 724.4 (1979). Defendant contends trial court erroneously overruled his motion for judgment of acquittal. We hold the evidence was sufficient to generate a jury issue and therefore affirm trial court's judgment based on the jury's guilty verdict.

In this case defendant also was charged and convicted of the crime of burglary in the second degree. He does not appeal from that part of the judgment and ten-year sentence. This appeal is from that portion of the judgment sentencing him to two years' concurrent imprisonment on the weapons charge.

The evidence disclosed that defendant was apprehended when driving a van from the burglary scene. A police officer who searched the van testified without contradiction that "[t]he bullets were inside the [.357 magnum revolver], the weapon was half sticking out of a holder, slightly behind and to the right of the driver's seat."

I. The pertinent count of the trial information charged defendant with violating that portion of section 724.4 here underlined:

A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon concealed on or about his or her person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated misdemeanor ....

Commenting upon the emphasized facet of the statutory prohibition, Professors Yeager and Carlson wrote:

The second kind of prohibited conduct [under section 724.4] is going armed with a pistol or revolver, or a loaded firearm of any kind, within the limits of any city. The pistol or revolver need not be loaded. This provision is new to the law and reflects the opinion of the drafting committee that no one should go so armed in areas of relatively dense population, whether the firearm is concealed or not. The phrase "within the limits of any city" was chosen as a convenient way of describing such areas, one which will permit anyone to identify the places where this restriction on the carrying of firearms will apply.

4 J. Yeager & R. Carlson, Iowa Practice § 517 (1979).

Obviously, the elements of the crime charged in this case are (1) being within the limits of a city, (2) going armed, and (3) a pistol, revolver, or any loaded firearm. It is undisputed that the incident in controversy occurred within the city limits of Davenport. It is uncontroverted that a loaded revolver was involved. The fighting issue is whether there was sufficient evidence that defendant was "going armed" under section 724.4.

Instruction 821, Iowa State Bar Association Uniform Jury Instructions (Criminal) defines "going armed" and "goes armed" for section 708.8, going armed with intent, purposes:

The terms "going armed" or "goes armed" mean the conscious and deliberate keeping of a (dangerous weapon ) on or about the person, available for immediate use.

The State requested a similar instruction in this case, but its request was refused. Defendant made no objection that the term was not defined, apparently convinced the omission would enhance the State's burden. We hold in the context of this charge that the "goes armed" requirement of section 724.4 is satisfied when an occupant of a vehicle consciously and deliberately keeps a pistol, revolver, or any loaded firearm where it is readily accessible to him or her.

This analysis finds support in Mularkey v. State, 201 Wis. 429, 432, 230 N.W. 76, 77 (1930) ("[T]he driver of an automobile goes armed, within the meaning of section 340.69, Stats., when he has a dangerous weapon within reach on a shelf in back of his seat."). It also is supported by numerous authorities that establish the rule that a weapon that is easily accessible in an automobile violates prohibitions against "carrying" or "concealing" weapons. See People v. Johnson, 49 Ill.App.3d 567, 568-69, 364 N.E.2d 590, 591, 7 Ill.Dec. 429, 430 (1977); Collier v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.2d 600, 601 (Ky.1970); Hampton v. Commonwealth, 257 Ky. 626, 628-30, 78 S.W.2d 748, 749-50 (1934); Dillon v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 145 148-50 (Okl.Cr.App.1954); State v. Williams, 636 P.2d 1092, 1094-95 (Utah 1981); 79 Am.Jur.2d Weapons and Firearms § 12 (1975); 94 C.J.S. Weapons § 8 (1956...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Harris
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2017
    ...person, available for immediate use." State v. Ray , 516 N.W.2d 863, 865 (Iowa 1994) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Alexander , 322 N.W.2d 71, 72 (Iowa 1982) ). We have also explained that the "going" element of going armed with intent "necessarily implicates proof of movement."......
  • State v. Luckett, 84-1589
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 21, 1986
  • State v. Ray, 93-1005
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1994
    ..."the conscious and deliberate keeping of a [dangerous weapon] on or about the person, available for immediate use." State v. Alexander, 322 N.W.2d 71, 72 (Iowa 1982); see 1 Iowa Criminal Jury Instructions 800.16. Applying this definition, a jury could easily find under this record that Ray ......
  • State v. Kirk, No. 6-816/05-1549 (Iowa App. 12/13/2006), 6-816/05-1549
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 2006
    ...means the conscious and deliberate keeping of a dangerous weapon on or about the person, available for immediate use. State v. Alexander, 322 N.W.2d 71, 72 (Iowa 1982); State v. Ray, 516 N.W.2d 863, 865 (Iowa We find the record includes substantial evidence supporting each element of the go......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT