State v. Everett, No. 56230

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHeard by MOORE; McCORMICK; All Justices concur, except RAWLINGS; RAWLINGS
Citation214 N.W.2d 214
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Wayne L. EVERETT, Appellant.
Decision Date16 January 1974
Docket NumberNo. 56230

Page 214

214 N.W.2d 214
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Wayne L. EVERETT, Appellant.
No. 56230.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Jan. 16, 1974.

Page 216

Hughes J. Bryant, Mason City, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Haskins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clayton L. Wornson, County Atty., for appellee.

Heard by MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ.

McCORMICK, Justice.

Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with aggravation under Code § 711.2. He alleges trail court should have ordered either a directed verdict of acquittal or new trial because of four erroneous trial rulings. We affirm the trial court.

Employees of the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-in in Mason City testified that the drive-in was robbed of about $400 at about 9:15 p.m. October 2, 1972, by two men using a pistol and wearing white T-shirts over their heads. One was described as wearing a red plaid 'C.P.O.' jacket and the other a blue jean jacket and jeans with rivets down the side.

One State witness said he saw two men whom he could not identify running from the robbery site toward a car parked the wrong way in a one-way alley near Washington School about one block west. Another testified he saw a green car with what he thought was Iowa license number 98--6087 parked there.

Investigating officers testified they later saw a green 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner bearing license number 95--6087 two blocks from the robbery site. Subsequently they found the car parked at Marnin's Drive-In and took its three occupants, Anthony 'Butch' Overbeck, owner of the car, Roger Everett, defendant's brother, and Robert Graham, into custody. Graham gave a statement to detective Walter L. Reindl and deputy chief Wayne Jewell implicating the three of them and Bobby Query in the robbery. He asserted Overbeck and Query robbed the Kentucky Fried Chicken drivein while the others waited in the car. He said Overbeck was wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket and Query blue jeans and a checkered 'C.P.O.' jacket. He told the officers they went to the Everett home in Mason City after the robbery where Overbeck and Query changed clothes and left the money.

Based on this investigative date detective Reindl obtained a warrant from police judge Harold Winston to search the Everett home. In their search officers found clothing answering the description of that worn by the robbers. They also found wrapped in a white towel in the bottom of a clothes hamper a small automatic pistol, $268 in cash, and a paper sack containing seven bags of marijuana.

In a second statement and in his testimony at trial Graham said it was defendant Wayne L. Everett rather than Query who accompanied Overbeck in the robbery. He also testified that marijuana had been in Overbeck's car and they all smoked some of it prior to the robbery. When called as a witness by the State Roger Everett testified his brother Wayne was with them, but

Page 217

Roger disclaimed knowledge of the robbery, saying he left the car to relieve himself when it was parked near Washington School. He denied giving the officers a statement that defendant and Overbeck had left the car at the same time to commit the robbery.

Defense witnesses included Overbeck, Query, Roger Everett and defendant. The purport of their testimony was that none of them participated in any robbery that evening, that Query was not with them at the time it was said to have occurred, that Graham was hallucinating during the evening from the effects of a 'micro-sunshine' LSD pill, and that defendant spent the evening either drinking or in Overbeck's car smoking marijuana.

Four questions are presented by this appeal. They are: whether trial court erred (1) in overruling defendant's objections to the introduction of evidence seized in the search of the Everett home, (2) in overruling defendant's motion for mistrial based on a remark of the prosecutor in his opening statement, (3) in overruling defense objections to cross-examination of Roger Everett, and (4) in overruling defendant's exception to an instruction on accomplice testimony.

I. The search and seizure. Defendant contends the search warrant for his home was issued without probable cause because based on hearsay which was neither reliable nor corroborated. Trial court overruled his pretrial motion to suppress the evidence from the search after an evidentiary hearing. Defendant renewed his objection at trial to some, but not all, of the evidence when offered by the State.

Where a motion to suppress is made and overruled prior to trial, a proper objection must be made when the evidence is offered at trial in order to preserve error. State v. Salazar, 213 N.W.2d 490 (Iowa 1973), and citations. Hence defendant waived his objection in those instances where he did not renew his pretrial objection at trial. Because he did in some instances renew his objection we must decide whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause. We believe it was.

The information for search warrant was supported by the affidavit of detective Reindl. In it he recited the details of the robbery, description of its perpetrators, circumstances relating to observation of the Overbeck car and apprehension of Overbeck,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • State v. Horn, No. 62231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1979
    ...in the language of requested instructions if the subject is covered in the court's own instructions." Id. at 514; See State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 219 (Iowa 1974) (citing Jones with approval). "A party cannot complain if instructions fail to emphasize circumstances favorable to him. Th......
  • State v. King, No. 59140
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 29, 1977
    ...in themselves to justify the belief of a man of reasonable caution that an offense has been or is being committed. State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 217 (Iowa 1974). It cannot be established unless the issuing officer has sufficient facts, as opposed to mere conclusions, to make his own det......
  • State v. Hall, No. 57467
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 1975
    ...question, too, is the rule that the scope of cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 219 (Iowa 1974); State v. Hinsey, 200 N.W.2d 810, 816 (Iowa 1972); State v. Harrington, 178 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa The trial was still in prog......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 564, Page 357 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1035, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 217--218 (Iowa 1974); State v. Lynch, 197 N.W.2d 186, 191 (Iowa For an extensive review of pertinent cases see State v. Kraft, 269 Md. 58......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • State v. Horn, No. 62231
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1979
    ...in the language of requested instructions if the subject is covered in the court's own instructions." Id. at 514; See State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 219 (Iowa 1974) (citing Jones with approval). "A party cannot complain if instructions fail to emphasize circumstances favorable to him. Th......
  • State v. King, No. 59140
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 29, 1977
    ...in themselves to justify the belief of a man of reasonable caution that an offense has been or is being committed. State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 217 (Iowa 1974). It cannot be established unless the issuing officer has sufficient facts, as opposed to mere conclusions, to make his own det......
  • State v. Hall, No. 57467
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 12, 1975
    ...question, too, is the rule that the scope of cross-examination lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 219 (Iowa 1974); State v. Hinsey, 200 N.W.2d 810, 816 (Iowa 1972); State v. Harrington, 178 N.W.2d 314, 316 (Iowa The trial was still in prog......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...Whiteley v. Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 564, Page 357 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1035, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); State v. Everett, 214 N.W.2d 214, 217--218 (Iowa 1974); State v. Lynch, 197 N.W.2d 186, 191 (Iowa For an extensive review of pertinent cases see State v. Kraft, 269 Md. 58......
  • 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