State v. Garrett

• Decision Date: 10 October 1890
• Citation: 46 N.W. 748,80 Iowa 589
• Parties: STATE v. GARRETT ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 Iowa 589

46 N.W. 748

STATE

v.GARRETT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 10, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Louisa county; J. K. JOHNSON, Judge.

Appellants were convicted of the crime of resisting an officer. From a judgment imposing a fine of $100 on each they appeal.D. N. Sprague and E. W. Tatlock, for appellants.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROBINSON, J.

The indictment charges that Aner Nearhood, as marshal of the town of Wapello, arrested, and was conveying to jail in a proper manner, an intoxicated person, and that, while so engaged, the defendants, George Garrett, Matt McMahill, and Willard Hicklin, willfully and maliciously assaulted him. The jury found all the defendants guilty as charged. A motion for a new trial was sustained as to Hicklin, and overruled as to the others. Garrett and McMahill appeal.

1. Appellants object to the indictment, for the reason that it did not give the name of the person under arrest. The offense named may be committed by knowingly and willfully resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties. While in this case it was necessary to charge that the officer was resisted in attempting to make a proper disposition of a person under arrest, the name of that person was wholly immaterial for the purposes of the indictment; and a failure to prove his name on the trial would not have been fatal to the prosecution. The time and place of the offense, and the facts constituting it, were so charged as to enable a person of common understanding to know what was intended, and that was sufficient. Code, § 4296. The case is not similar to one of larceny, for in the latter the title to the property in controversy is usually a material issue, and must be proven; and it is usual, at least, to name the owner.

2. The officer stated that he arrested Foor, the person on whose account the assault was made, for violating a city ordinance by being intoxicated in a public place. Appellants complain, because the ordinance referred to was not proven, and insist that the evidence did not show that Foor was intoxicated, as alleged. We think the proof of his intoxication was ample; but, if it were not, that fact would not avail defendants as a defense, nor justify their acts. The right of an officer to arrest an individual and convey him to jail cannot be determined in the manner adopted by defendants. Montgomery v. Sutton, 58 Iowa, 701, 12 N. W. Rep. 719;67 Iowa, 498, 25 N. W. Rep. 748. If Foor was found...