State v. Harriott, No. 49030

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtOLIVER
Citation79 N.W.2d 332,248 Iowa 25
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jack Ronald HARRIOTT, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 49030
Decision Date13 November 1956

Page 332

79 N.W.2d 332
248 Iowa 25
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Jack Ronald HARRIOTT, Appellant.
No. 49030.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Nov. 13, 1956.

Page 333

[248 Iowa 26] Leslie L. Boomhower, Mason City, for appellant.

Dayton Countryman, Atty. Gen., Raphael R. R. Dvorak, Dudley C. Lowry, Asst. Attys. Gen., and William Pappas, County Atty. of Cerro Gordo County, Mason City, for appellee.

OLIVER, Justice.

A county attorney's information charged defendant with larceny of a motor vehicle, contrary to section 321.82, Code of Iowa 1954, I.C.A. Trial to a jury resulted in his conviction, sentence and this appeal.

A detailed confession signed by him recited he stole the parked automobile, the evening of March 3, 1956, and sold it for $60 to Harold Walkner, who dismantled it. In the trial Walkner's partner testified to defendant's selling the automobile and its dismantling. When the loss of the car was discovered defendant was arrested and taken to the police station, March 5, at 10 or 11 P.M. He testified officers at the police station examined him about the taking of the car, from 10 P.M. until midnight, shortly thereafter for forty-five minutes, and at 2:30 A.M. for two hours; he was too nervous to sleep; he was given breakfast; at 8 A.M. officer McClintock examined him and told him, 'he (McClintock) could either give me a chance to go to the army or get me six months or a year parole * * * and he would go to bat for me.' Defendant signed the confession at 10:20 that morning. He testified he signed it because he thought he would get a parole.

The record shows he had schooling to the eighth grade and had been convicted of a felony. He testified he 'took back' his confession. However, he made no reference to any of the details therein nor to his guilt or innocence of the offense for which he was being tried.

The police officers testified defendant was interrogated for twenty or thirty minutes after 11 P.M., for a few minutes after midnight and again from about 2:30 to 3:15 in the morning. Defendant then denied his guilt. Officer McClintock next questioned him from 8 A.M. to 10:20 A.M., at which time defendant [248 Iowa 27] signed the confession. Officer McClintock testified defendant made the confession voluntarily and no threats or promises were made defendant then or at any other time. 'I didn't tell him that I would try to get him into the military service if he signed a statement or that I would try to get him six months.'

Page 334

I. Defendant contends the confession was involuntary as a matter of law and should not have been admitted in evidence over his objections. Assuming the sufficiency of his testimony, if uncontroverted, to show the confession was involuntary because induced by the promise of a parole, the testimony of the officer to the contrary generated an issue of fact upon this point. The issue whether it was voluntary was submitted to the jury. It is clear this did not abridge defendant's rights. State v. Strable, 228 Iowa 886, 293 N.W. 441; State v. Williams, 245 Iowa 494, 500, 62 N.W.2d 742, 745, and citations; State v. Case, 247 Iowa ----, 75 N.W.2d 233, 236, 237, and citations. Nor would the circumstances that he had not been advised of his right to and did not then have counsel and was without sufficient sleep, render the confession inadmissible. State v. Hofer, 238 Iowa 820, 828, 28 N.W.2d 475, and citations; State v. Strable, 228 Iowa 886, 892, 293 N.W. 441, supra.

II. There is no merit in defendant's contention his rights were violated becuase he was arrested without a warrant and was held without charge until his confession was obtained. Section 755.4, Code of Iowa 1954, I.C.A., provides for arrest by a peace officer without a warrant. We have already held the question whether the confession was voluntary was for the jury.

III. The record of the cross-examination of officer McClintock by counsel for defendant, shows: 'Q. Didn't you say to him (defendant) you would try to get him in the service? A. I knew he couldn't get into the service, and I knew if he had a previous record, they wouldn't take him. Object to that as highly prejudicial. Overruled.' Later, in the absence of the jury, the court observed that the statement appeared inadvertent, and offered, if requested by defendant, to caution the jury to disregard it. No error appears here. Thereafter, defendant testified and admitted he had been convicted of a felony.

IV. Defendant signed the confession at 10:20 A.M., March 6. He remained in jail and was formally charged with [248 Iowa 28] larceny of the motor vehicle at 8:30 A.M., March 7. Immediately thereafter the jailer took defendant from his cell to the preliminary hearing of Walkner held in the same building. The charge against Walkner, not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Culombe v. Connecticut, No. 161
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1961
    ...Davis v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 620, 137 N.E.2d 30. Iowa: State v. Williams, 1954, 245 Iowa 494, 62 N.W.2d 742; State v. Harriott, 1956, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332; State v. Triplett, 1956, 248 Iowa 339, 79 N.W.2d 391. Kansas: State v. Vargas, 1957, 180 Kan. 716, 308 P.2d 81; and see State v......
  • State v. De Cola, Nos. A--6--60
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 24, 1960
    ...be used against the witness. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt (1959) § 2.07, p. 66; McCormick, Evidence (1954) § 127, p. 267; State v. Harriott, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332 (Sup.Ct.1956); State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96 (Sup.Ct.1918); State v. Allison, 116 Mont. 352, 153 P.2d 141 (Sup......
  • Killpatrick v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 1957
    ...answers so given cannot be said to be voluntary * * *.' 181 Iowa at page 450, 164 N.W. at page 798. See, also, State v. Harriott, Iowa, 79 N.W.2d 332, It is axiomatic that a person may waive the privilege against self-incrimination. But any such waiver 'must be informed and intelligent. The......
  • State v. Luscombe, No. 46915
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 3, 1973
    ...refuse to answer any question that might tend to incriminate him. (21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Waiver, § 357, p. 384; State v. Harriott, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332; and State v. Ceaser, 249 La. 435, 187 So.2d The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...
4 cases
  • Culombe v. Connecticut, No. 161
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1961
    ...Davis v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 620, 137 N.E.2d 30. Iowa: State v. Williams, 1954, 245 Iowa 494, 62 N.W.2d 742; State v. Harriott, 1956, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332; State v. Triplett, 1956, 248 Iowa 339, 79 N.W.2d 391. Kansas: State v. Vargas, 1957, 180 Kan. 716, 308 P.2d 81; and see State v......
  • State v. De Cola, Nos. A--6--60
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 24, 1960
    ...be used against the witness. Maguire, Evidence of Guilt (1959) § 2.07, p. 66; McCormick, Evidence (1954) § 127, p. 267; State v. Harriott, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332 (Sup.Ct.1956); State v. Blackburn, 273 Mo. 469, 201 S.W. 96 (Sup.Ct.1918); State v. Allison, 116 Mont. 352, 153 P.2d 141 (Sup......
  • Killpatrick v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 1957
    ...answers so given cannot be said to be voluntary * * *.' 181 Iowa at page 450, 164 N.W. at page 798. See, also, State v. Harriott, Iowa, 79 N.W.2d 332, It is axiomatic that a person may waive the privilege against self-incrimination. But any such waiver 'must be informed and intelligent. The......
  • State v. Luscombe, No. 46915
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • March 3, 1973
    ...refuse to answer any question that might tend to incriminate him. (21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Waiver, § 357, p. 384; State v. Harriott, 248 Iowa 25, 79 N.W.2d 332; and State v. Ceaser, 249 La. 435, 187 So.2d The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ...

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