State v. Grigsby
| Decision Date | 13 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 37909 |
| Citation | 216 N.W. 678,204 Iowa 1133 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. HARRY GRIGSBY, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marshall District Court.--JAMES W. WILLETT, Judge.
The defendant appeals from a conviction and judgment of the crime of the unlawful transportation of intoxicating liquors.
Affirmed.
W. T Bennett, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, for appellee.
About 7 P. M. on March 2, 1926, the sheriff, his deputy, and the county attorney of Marshall County under took to arrest one Charles Wyatt and the defendant on a public street in the city of Marshalltown. The defendant and Wyatt were seated in a Hupp automobile on Eighth Avenue in said city. Wyatt was the driver. As soon as the occupants of the automobile were apprised by the officers of their mission, or an attempt was made to arrest them, the automobile was started, and driven rapidly away. The officers followed, firing several shots at the oil tank and tires of the automobile. One bullet, however, struck the defendant in the right shoulder, inflicting a slight wound. During the flight, the defendant was seen by the officers to throw two gallon cans out of the automobile. These cans were found to contain alcohol. The defendant's explanation of his presence in the automobile was that he had gone to the city to get a razor which he had left to be honed, and, while he was standing on the street corner, he saw Wyatt drive up in his automobile, and called to him; that he got in the car, intending only to ride with him; that he had nothing to do with the transportation of the liquor, and did not know what was contained in the cans. The officers, however, testified that they saw the defendant apparently engaged in trying to get hold of the cans, which were in a place provided therefor, immediately back of and below, but not under, the seat. An examination of the automobile disclosed a small opening back of the seat into the body of the car. The space below and back of this opening was large enough to hold 20 or more gallon cans. The defendant was indicated as a principal, and so tried.
The sole proposition relied upon by appellant for reversal is an alleged prejudicial error in Paragraph 5 of the court's charge to the jury. The instruction is clearly not technically correct. The only exception preserved in the record to this instruction is the following:
"This [meaning the portion of the instruction complained of] was damaging and prejudicial to the defendant, and there was no alternative given to him to show that, even if he threw said cans from the car, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial