State v. Kimball
Decision Date | 05 May 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 53564,53564 |
Citation | 176 N.W.2d 864 |
Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James B. KIMBALL, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Don J. Wilson, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., James W. Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Carl R. Letz, Hardin County Atty., and Allen M. Oppen, Special Prosecutor, for appellee.
A Hardin County jury convicted defendant of false drawing and uttering of a check in violation of section 713.3, Code of Iowa. The trial court sentenced him to a term of seven years at the state penitentiary. He has appealed claiming seven errors which are stated, briefed and argued in five divisions covering less than eight pages. We would have appreciated more help.
I. The essential elements of the crime charged are: '1, Intent to defraud; 2, securing money, credit or other thing of value by means of a check, draft or written order; and 3, knowingly not having any arrangement, understanding, or funds with the bank, person or corporation upon which the check or other instrument is drawn sufficient to meet or pay the same.' State v. Lansman (1953), 245 Iowa 102, 106, 60 N.W.2d 815, 817.
Defendant claims there was not sufficient evidence of these elements to raise a question for the jury. We do not agree. There was evidence from which the jury could find the following:
On the evening of May 1, 1968, defendant, in the presence of Harm Folkerts, an employee of the Eldora Livestock Sales Barn, wrote a check in the amount of $10,475.36, to the sales barn for the purchase of 53 head of cattle. The check was drawn on the Security State Bank in Radcliffe, Iowa, and signed 'Jim Kimball, Special Account'.
Around 10:00 p.m. the same night the 53 head of cattle were loaded on two trucks at the Eldora Sales Barn for defendant and taken to the Union Stockyards in Omaha. Defendant made arrangements for their unloading.
It was brought out by defendant on cross-examination of Orlen Stolee, co-manager of the sales barn, that the cattle were being bought for him and were to be brought to defendant's farm and finished.
The next morning Folkerts gave the check to the bookkeeper for the sales barn who delivered it to the general manager. He took the check to the Security State Bank in Radcliffe and presented it for payment. The vice-president and cashier of the bank testified the check was presented for payment May 2, 1968 and was refused for insufficient funds. Defendant had only one account with that bank.
This evidence, aided by section 713.4 which provides that refusal of the check for insufficient funds by the bank on which it was drawn 'shall be material and competent evidence of such lack of arrangement, understanding, or lack of funds', was sufficient proof of all the elements of the offense charged to make a jury issue of defendant's guilt. State v. Lansman, supra at 106--107, 60 N.W.2d at 817--818.
II. The case was specially assigned for trial January 6, 1969. Defendant appeared without counsel. The following colloquy took place in the presence of the entire jury panel:
On January 8 prior to trial, defendant moved the court for a continuance until another jury panel was present claiming the court's remarks so prejudiced the jury that defendant could not obtain a fair trial before that panel. Defendant assigns the overruling of this motion as error.
We cannot approve of the court's remarks to defendant in the presence of the jury. There may have been some justification for the trial court's obvious irritation with defendant, but he should not have displayed this hostility before the jury panel. The court should at all times be cautious of what he says and does when a jury is present. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 987, p. 995; 53 Am.Jur. 75, Trial 76. They are particularly sensitive to a judge's views and the revelation of his feelings toward the parties, counsel or witnesses may influence the jury more than the evidence. See Pickerell v. Griffith (1947), 238 Iowa 1151, 1164--1165, 29 N.W.2d 588, 595--596; State v. Philpot (1896), 97 Iowa 365, 369, 66 N.W. 730, 732.
At this time the courts are acutely aware of defendant's right to a fair trial and it is essential for trial courts to be impartial and circumspect in the treatment of defendant, his counsel and witnesses. See Annotation 62 A.L.R.2d 166, Conduct of Court--Rebuking Counsel. 'It is vastly more important that the attitude of the trial judge should be impartial than that any particular defendant, however guilty he may be, should be convicted.' Hunter v. United States (5th Cir. 1932), 62 F.2d 217, 220.
The trial court's remarks revealed his irritation with defendant and his obvious hostility toward him. Although there is no claim the hostility was displayed subsequently, this attitude may have permeated the whole trial and affected the jury's action on the case. It may have jeopardized the presumption of innocence to which defendant is entitled. We cannot escape the conclusion that these comments were likely to arouse prejudice against defendant in the minds of the jury. We are slow to hold matters calculated to arouse prejudice non-prejudicial in a criminal case. State v. Collins (1955), 246 Iowa 989, 996, 69 N.W.2d 31, 35.
We believe defendant was denied a fair trial by the trial court's pretrial remarks and must reverse his conviction for that reason.
III. The direct testimony of Gordon Reisinger, manager of the Eldora Livestock Sales, Inc. is summarized in the record as follows: 'On or about May 1, 1968, Mr. Jackson gave me a check that I took to the Security State Bank at Radcliffe and presented it for payment.'
On cross-examination he was asked if the Eldora Livestock Company had instituted civil suit against Mr. Kimball. The trial court sustained an objection to the question.
Although it has considerable discretion in determining the scope and extent of cross-examination, State v. Frommelt (1968), Iowa, 159 N.W.2d 532, 537, the trial court erred in refusing to allow the witness to answer this question. It is proper for a party to inquire as to the interest the witness may have in the matters about which he is testifying. State v. Sampson (1956), 248 Iowa 458, 79 N.W.2d 210, 212. As we are reversing the case for the reasons stated in division II, we need not decide whether the error was prejudicial under these particular facts.
IV. The trial court instructed the jury: 'Under our law a person charged with a crime may testify in his own behalf, but he has a right not to be a witness in his own behalf, and the exercise of such right on the part of the defendant shall not be considered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. King
...* * .' (Citation) We are slow to hold matters calculated to arouse prejudice are non-prejudicial in a criminal case. State v. Kimball, (176 N.W.2d 864) at 867 (Iowa 1970)." King argues, on the basis of the last portion of the above quoted opinion, trial court's conduct in this case must be ......
-
Walls v. State
...certain adverse inferences which would not otherwise have entered their minds.’ ” Id. at 165, 562 A.2d 1234 (quoting State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864, 869 (Iowa 1970) ). The Court reasoned that because the purpose of the instruction is to protect the defendant, “it should, like other rights......
-
Lakeside v. Oregon
...380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106); Gross v. State, 261 Ind. 489, 306 N.E.2d 371 (violates Fifth Amendment); State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa) (may violate spirit of Griffin ). 4. The Malloy decision overruled the long-settled doctrine of Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, ......
-
Hatter v. Warden, Iowa Men's Reformatory, C89-0062.
...1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981). This instruction is not given in Iowa unless specifically requested by the defendant. State v. Kimball, 176 N.W.2d 864, 869 (Iowa 1970). Third is the right to take the stand and testify on his own behalf. See Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49-53, 107 S.Ct. 2704,......