State v. Briggs

• Decision Date: 14 December 1928
• Docket Number: No. 39203.,39203.
• Citation: 222 N.W. 552,207 Iowa 221
• Parties: STATE v. BRIGGS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

207 Iowa 221

222 N.W. 552

STATE

v.BRIGGS.

No. 39203.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 14, 1928.

Appeal from District Court, Calhoun County; R. L. McCord, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for maintaining a liquor nuisance, and upon trial was convicted, and prosecutes this appeal. Affirmed.Gray & Gray, of Rockwell City, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FAVILLE, J.

[1] On March 5, 1927, the premises of the appellant were searched by the sheriff and assistants. A bottle containing intoxicating liquor was found in a cupboard on the porch of the house. A large number of empty bottles were found about the premises. There were several boxes of these, and also some cans and jugs. The evidence showed that certain of the empty bottles, cans, and jugs were examined, and there was evidence that the odor of the contents was that of intoxicating liquor. The errors relied upon for reversal are in part as follows:

“1. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for directed verdict made at the close of the state's testimony.

2. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for directed verdict made at the close of all testimony.

3. The court erred in overruling motion to set aside verdict and for a new trial.

4. The court erred in giving each and all of the instructions given.

5. The court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant.”

Turning to the abstract, we find that the motion for new trial was based upon five separate grounds, some of which were quite broad and inclusive. We have repeatedly held that assignments of error of the character above set forth are not sufficient to demand our consideration, or require a review thereof. We cannot be expected to examine “each and all of the instructions given” under this blanket form of objection to discover whether or not error exists therein. In law actions we sit as a court for the correction of errors at law, and the precise error of which complaint is made must be substantially pointed out by the appellant. Such is our rule, and such is our uniform holding. State v. Vandewater, 203 Iowa, 94, 212 N. W. 339;State v. Gibson, 204 Iowa, 1306, 214 N. W. 743;State v. Lambertti, 204 Iowa, 670, 215 N. W. 752;State v. White (Iowa) 217 N. W. 871;State v. Cordaro (Iowa) 218 N. W. 477;State v. Gill, 202 Iowa, 242, 210 N. W. 120.

[2] II. Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling appellant's objection to a question asked of the witness Spork concerning his testimony before the grand jury. The situation disclosed by the record is very similar to that which we recently reviewed in State v. Friend, 220 N. W. 59. The witness was asked as to whether or not he had ever smelled the contents of a certain bottle shown to him, after it was taken to the sheriff's office and marked as an exhibit. His reply was: “I do not know whether I did or did not.” Thereupon the county attorney showed him his testimony before the grand jury in respect to said matter. Later the...