State v. Dodson, No. 54817

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtRAWLINGS
Citation195 N.W.2d 684
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Roger Benjamin DODSON, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 54817
Decision Date16 March 1972

Page 684

195 N.W.2d 684
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Roger Benjamin DODSON, Appellant.
No. 54817.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 16, 1972.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 1972.

Roger W. Sunleaf, of McNeil, Bonham & Sunleaf, Montezuma, for appellant.

Page 685

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., James W. Hughes, Michael J. Laughlin, and Larry Seuferer, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Richard J. Vogel, County Atty., for appellee.

RAWLINGS, Justice.

Defendant, Roger Benjamin (Ben) Dodson, was charged with unlawful possession of drugs (LSD). His pretrial suppression motion and objections to introduction in evidence of material seized under search warrant were all overruled. Trial jury returned a guilty verdict. Motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial were overruled. From sentence entered Dodson appeals. We affirm.

November 27, 1970, an unidentified informant told Grinnell Police Chief C. W. Peters that Dodson possessed LSD (D-lysergic Acid Diethylamide). The same day, while Peters was in process of securing a warrant for search of Dodson's person and residence, Dodson, of his own volition, entered the police station to visit Gerald Baustian, Jr., there incarcerated.

Upon issuance of the warrant Peters searched Dodson. Nothing was found. Peters then informed Dodson regarding issuance of warrant for search of his residence and asked if he wanted to go along. Dodson acquiesced.

Peters and Police Sergeant Donald C. Ellis, accompanied by Dodson, then went to the latter's home. There the warrant was presented to Homer Dodson, defendant's father, who showed them to his son's room. Upon entering Peters there saw a suitcase in plain sight near the bed. When queried as to what was in the locked suitcase Dodson replied, 'Nothing, I don't have the keys to it.' Peters and Ellis continued the search, mentioning several times Dodson had better get the keys. After approximately twenty minutes Dodson asked Peters, 'You people want to get serious now?' To this Peters replied affirmatively. They then discussed Dodson's personal problems. In course of this conversation Dodson made inquiry and was advised as to the penalty for possession of drugs. He then took a key from his pocket, opened the suitcase, and handed Peters two sheets of paper which appeared to have tabs of LSD on them. Dodson was immediately arrested and given a Miranda warning. Subsequent laboratory examination confirmed presence of the drug.

January 11, 1970, Dodson was charged by information with the instant offense. By pretrial motion to suppress he sought to exclude from evidence the material discovered in the search of his residence. As aforesaid, this motion and his timely trial objections to evidential use of the drug were in each instance overruled. The search seized LSD and testimony regarding attendant circumstances were accordingly introduced in evidence, and a guilty verdict returned by jury.

The fundamental issue to be resolved is whether trial court erred in so permitting introduction of the search seized LSD.

I. By his first assignment of error Dodson contends the controverted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...38 L.Ed.2d 62 (1973); United States v. Kleve, 465 F.2d 187, 192 (8th Cir. 1972); State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d at 217; State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 685 (Iowa 1972). Here, however, reference to the agreement was vague and there is no adequate basis for crediting (6) On a routine call to 1......
  • State v. Hansen, No. 56473
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1975
    ...851 (1967). We hold the State established the statement was voluntarily given and the trial court properly admitted it. State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 686 (Iowa 1972); State v. Fetters, 202 N.W.2d 84, 88, 89 (Iowa 1972); State v. Olson, 260 Iowa 311, Page 351 318, 319, 149 N.W.2d 132, 136......
  • State v. Everett, No. 56230
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 16, 1974
    ...States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 708 (1960) ('hearsay may be the basis for a warrant'); State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 685 (Iowa 1972). A substantial basis for crediting hearsay exists when the statement is against the penal interest of the one who makes it. Un......
3 cases
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...38 L.Ed.2d 62 (1973); United States v. Kleve, 465 F.2d 187, 192 (8th Cir. 1972); State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d at 217; State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 685 (Iowa 1972). Here, however, reference to the agreement was vague and there is no adequate basis for crediting (6) On a routine call to 1......
  • State v. Hansen, No. 56473
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 22, 1975
    ...851 (1967). We hold the State established the statement was voluntarily given and the trial court properly admitted it. State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 686 (Iowa 1972); State v. Fetters, 202 N.W.2d 84, 88, 89 (Iowa 1972); State v. Olson, 260 Iowa 311, Page 351 318, 319, 149 N.W.2d 132, 136......
  • State v. Everett, No. 56230
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 16, 1974
    ...States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 736, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 708 (1960) ('hearsay may be the basis for a warrant'); State v. Dodson, 195 N.W.2d 684, 685 (Iowa 1972). A substantial basis for crediting hearsay exists when the statement is against the penal interest of the one who makes it. Un......

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