State v. Clark
| Decision Date | 23 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 40339 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. ARTHUR CLARK, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dickinson District Court.--JAMES DELAND, Judge.
The defendant was prosecuted on a county attorney's information, and convicted of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquors. From a conviction and judgment imposing imprisonment in the county jail and a fine, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Bedell & Bedell, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, Angus Macdonald, Former County Attorney and K. B. Welty, Present County Attorney, for appellee.
While other propositions for reversal are recited in appellant's brief, the only one argued is the alleged error of the court in overruling a motion for new trial based upon alleged misconduct of the jurors. Three affidavits of jurors were attached to the motion, each, in substance stating that one of the jurors made the following statement in the jury room, before a verdict had been agreed upon "If you knew the defendant like I do, you would not hesitate to find him guilty." Responding to the inquiry of another juror as to what he meant, the juror said: "Because he does nothing but bootleg." Thereupon another juror said: "I know he is the king of bootleggers." Two of the jurors affirmed that they changed their votes from "not guilty" to "guilty" because of the statements complained of.
These statements by the jurors cannot be considered. They inhere in the verdict. Jurors may not be permitted to thus stultify themselves. State v. Gilliland, 187 Iowa 794, 174 N.W. 496; State v. Bird, 196 Iowa 474, 194 N.W. 73. The question to be decided is: Were the statements and remarks of the jurors of such a character as to have probably influenced or prejudiced the jury in the rendition of the verdict? It will be observed that one of the jurors said he knew the defendant was a bootlegger, and the other that he was the king of bootleggers. He was not charged with the crime of bootlegging, but with having the illegal possession of intoxicating liquors. His guilt or innocence of this charge was the only issue submitted to the jury. The evidence of guilt was limited to the testimony of one witness. The defendant introduced evidence calculated to impeach the credibility of the testimony of the state's witness. The statements made by the jurors that the defendant was the king of...
To continue reading
Request your trial