State v. Korth
| Decision Date | 25 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 38595.,38595. |
| Citation | 215 N.W. 706,204 Iowa 667 |
| Parties | STATE v. KORTH. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Robt. H. Munger, Judge.
Defendant was charged by indictment with the crime of illegal possession of narcotic drugs. She was convicted and sentenced to be committed to the women's reformatory for a period of ten years, from which sentence she prosecutes this appeal. Affirmed.Yeaman & Yeaman and Milchrist, Jepson, Marshall & Jepson, all of Sioux City, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On or about the 7th day of May, 1926, the appellant and a woman companion were in a store in Sioux City. Detectives suspected the appellant's companion of having stolen articles from the store. The two women were detained by the detectives and taken back to the store and searched. No stolen goods were found upon the person of the appellant. A patrol wagon was called, and the women were taken to the jail. In the course of the transaction one of the detectives grabbed the appellant by the left hand and squeezed it so as to cause pain therein and required the appellant to open her hand. It was then discovered that she had concealed in her hand a handkerchief and a bottle containing 32.9 grains of morphine. The appellant was a witness in her own behalf. She was 29 years of age, and admitted that she had been a drug addict for 7 years. The bottle of morphine was offered in evidence over appellant's objection.
[1] I. Appellant predicates error upon the admission in evidence of the bottle of morphine. It is the contention that the bottle was taken from the appellant by an unlawful search, and therefore was not admissible in evidence. It is conceded that the party taking the bottle from the custody of the appellant did so without a search warrant. The contention of the appellant is contrary to the holding of this court in State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa, 94, 191 N. W. 530;State v. Rowley, 197 Iowa, 977, 195 N. W. 881;Lucia v. Utterback, 197 Iowa, 1181, 198 N. W. 626;State v. Bogossian, 198 Iowa, 972, 200 N. W. 586;Hammer v. Utterback, 202 Iowa, 50, 209 N. W. 522;State v. Wenks, 200 Iowa, 669, 202 N. W. 753;State v. Parenti, 200 Iowa, 333, 202 N. W. 77. The exhibit was admissible.
[2] II. It is argued that the court erred in refusing to sustain the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The evidence in the case was ample not only to require the submission of the case to the jury, but to sustain the verdict predicated thereon. The court did not err in refusing a verdict in behalf of the appellant.
[3] III. It is contended that the punishment inflicted is excessive. The statute providing the penalty for violation of the act under which the appellant was indicted is as follows (Code, § 3168):
“Any person violating any of the preceding provisions of this chapter shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than ten years, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
We are disposed to acquiesce in the view of the trial court that, under all the facts and circumstances of this case, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial