State v. Hocker
| Decision Date | 19 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 54398,54398 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. William HOCKER, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard N. Winders, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Barry M. Anderson, Deputy County Atty., for appellant.
N. E. McManus, Keokuk, For appellee.
Defendant, William Hocker, was charged with the crime of hunting by artificial light contrary to Code section 109.93. A jury found him not guilty and the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal. On the State's appeal we reverse. We do not remand as defendant has been in jeopardy. Code section 793.9.
The State contends trial court erred in giving instruction 10 to which timely specific objections were made. Instruction 10 was:
'It is the defendant's contention that he was on the premises in question at the time charged in the Information at the request and with the knowledge of the owner of said premises for the purpose of tracking down animals that had been killing domestic animals of the owner of said premises.
'If the jury finds this to be a fact, then your verdict should be not guilty.'
Code section 109.93 under which defendant was charged, tried and acquitted provides in pertinent part:
'It shall be unlawful to throw or cast the rays of a spotlight, headlight or other artificial light on any highway, or in any field, woodland, or forest for the purpose of spotting, locating or taking or attempting to take or hunt any animal, except raccoons or other fur-bearing animals when treed with the aid of dogs, while having in possession or control, either singly or as one of a group of persons, any firearm, bow or other implement whereby game could be killed.'
Where a statute is plain and the meaning clear, courts are not permitted to search for its meaning beyond its expressed terms. We are not permitted to write into the statute words which are not there. Dingman v. City of Council Bluffs, 249 Iowa 1121, 1126, 90 N.W.2d 742, 746; In re Adoption of Alley, 234 Iowa 931, 934, 14 N.W.2d 742, 744; Eysink v. Board, 229 Iowa 1240, 1244, 296 N.W. 376, 378, and citations.
Section 109.93 clearly states the only exception to the prohibition against hunting by artificial light. It has no application to the facts shown in this case. Dogs were not being used. No treed animal was being pursued. It was error to instruct on an exception to the statute which is plainly not present in its language.
Reversed but not remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rich
... ... Lawr, 263 N.W.2d 747, 750 (Iowa 1978). When a statute is plain and its meaning is clear, however, courts are not permitted to search for meaning beyond its express terms. State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74, 74 (Iowa 1972). In addition, statutes relating to the same subject matter must be considered in light of their common purpose, State ex rel. Krupke v. Witkowski, 256 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1977), and in interpreting a statute, other pertinent statutes are to be considered, State v ... ...
-
Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Forst
...no court, under the guise of judicial construction, may add words of qualification to the sentence in question. See State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1972); Davenport Water Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Com'n., 190 N.W.2d 583, 594--595 (Iowa 1971). It is only reasonable, however, to conclud......
-
State v. Morrison
...artificial hunting lights have been upheld under statutes employing varying language to describe the protected species. See State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1972) ("any animal"); People v. Kreienheder, 21 Ill.Dec. 425, 64 Ill.App.3d 598, 381 N.E.2d 752 (1978) ("any wild birds or mammals......
-
Cochran v. Lovelace, 55354
...is so clear, complete and free from ambiguity as to preclude any judicial construction. See Iowa R.Civ.P. 344(f)(13); State v. Hocker, 201 N.W.2d 74 (Iowa 1972); McKillip v. Zimmerman, 191 N.W.2d 706, 709 (Iowa 1971); State Ex Rel. Turner v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 191 N.W.2d 624, 631 ......