State v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 07 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | 45693. |
| Citation | 3 N.W.2d 133,231 Iowa 1112 |
| Parties | STATE v. BRADLEY. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Healey & Reynolds, of Creston, and Elton A Johnston, of Corydon, for appellant.
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., and George F. Allen, Co. Atty., and Kenneth H. Davenport, Sp. Pros., both of Creston, for appellee.
At the time the indictment was returned, defendant held a Class "B" Permit issued by the City of Creston, Iowa.
Sections 1921.126 and 1921.132 appear in Chapter 93.2 entitled Beer and Malt Liquors.
The material parts of said sections read:
I. Defendant claims the court erred in overruling his demurrer to the indictment and his motion in arrest of judgment for the following reasons: (1) A violation of section 1921.126 is not a crime. (2) A violation of said section is not an indictable offense. (3) Said section contains its own punishment and the legislature did not intend that the general punishment statute, section 1921.132, should apply to a violation of section 1921.126. We cannot agree with defendant's construction of the statutes. The provision in section 1921.126 making its violation a ground for revoking the permit refers to the power granted municipalities by the act to issue permits and revoke the same for causes stated in the chapter. In addition to making a violation of the statute a ground for revoking the privilege to sell beer by civil proceedings, the legislature made it a crime punishable as provided in section 1921.132. The legislature clearly intended to make a person who violates section 1921.126 subject to the civil and criminal procedure.
II. Another assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to permit the chief of police to testify on cross examination to matters concerning the alleged illegality of search warrant proceedings.
On November 25, 1940, two gallons of whiskey were taken from the place of business of defendant by search warrant proceedings. The information charged that intoxicating liquors were owned and kept by defendant with the intent to sell in violation of the laws of the State of Iowa. A hearing was had and on December 4 an order of nonforfeiture was entered by the magistrate but the seized liquor was ordered held as evidence in this case and subject to the final order of the district court of Union County, Iowa and delivered to the sheriff of said county. In the recent case of State v. Nelson, 231 Iowa 177, 300 N.W. 685, this court adhered to the rule established in this state by State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 191 N.W. 530, that evidence is not subject to exclusion because illegally obtained. The ruling of the trial court was proper. The court also properly refused to permit the witness to testify as to the contents of the information for a search warrant, the warrant and the judgment of the magistrate which documents were in evidence and to testify as to his interpretation of the judgment entered by the magistrate which held the whiskey was not subject to forfeiture.
III. Another assignment is that the court erred in refusing to permit the magistrate who presided in the search warrant proceedings to testify that he meant to enter an order of nonforfeiture because the liquor was not of an illegal nature and that the seals were unbroken at the time the liquor was seized because: (1) The evidence was obtained by an illegal search warrant. (2) The justice of the peace had ruled that the liquor should not be forfeited and the jury had a right to consider this ruling as to any inference that could be drawn therefrom.
As heretofore stated, the fact that the two gallons of whiskey may have been wrongfully obtained did not make it inadmissible in evidence.
It appeared without contradiction in the evidence that the liquor was purchased from a state liquor store and that the seals were unbroken at the time of its seizure. The judgment of the justice of the peace which held that the whiskey was not subject to forfeiture was admitted in evidence and was before the jury for consideration. There is no error in this assignment.
IV. There is no merit to defendant's claim that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial