State v. Liechti

• Citation: 229 N.W. 743,209 Iowa 1119
• Decision Date: 11 March 1930
• Docket Number: 40249
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. AL LIECHTI, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

229 N.W. 743

209 Iowa 1119

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. AL LIECHTI, Appellant

No. 40249

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

March 11, 1930

Appeal from Keokuk District Court.--FRANK BECHLY, Judge.

The defendant was prosecuted for driving an automobile upon the public highway while intoxicated. There was a verdict of guilty, and a sentence pronounced thereon, committing the defendant to the reformatory at Anamosa. The defendant has appealed.

Reversed.

Robert J. Shaw, for appellant.

John Fletcher and Edwin Willcockson, for appellee.

EVANS J. MORLING, C. J., and FAVILLE, KINDIG, and GRIMM, JJ concur.

OPINION

EVANS J.

The date of the alleged offense was April 14, 1929. The evidence relied on by the State is wholly circumstantial. On the night of April 13th, O'Rourke parked his car on one of the business streets of Sigourney, at 12:10 A. M. The street extended east and west. The parking occurred on the north side of the street, at an angle of 45 degrees, and at a point some distance west of a street intersection, and 50 feet east of an alley, extending north and south through the block on the north side of the street. The car was parked without lights. Shortly thereafter, the defendant drove through the alley from the north, and turned east along the street in question. He failed to see O'Rourke's car, and collided with it, and inflicted injury thereto on its left side. This is the version of the accident given by the defendant himself to the officers. There was no other witness. Thereafter, the defendant drove out of town, following a primary road for a short distance. From the primary road he turned into a "side road," where he parked his car, and made it his lodging place for the rest of the night. Between 3:00 A. M. and 4:00 A. M., he was found here, sound asleep in his car, by the sheriff and the night watchman and three other witnesses.

The theory of the prosecution is that the defendant was intoxicated when found; that this fact would warrant the presumption or inference that he was intoxicated at the time that he collided with O'Rourke's car, a few hours earlier.

Several errors are assigned and argued. The more serious question in the case is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. There is no direct evidence of the defendant's condition at the time of the accident. The accident was of such nature as could have happened to a sober person. The parking of a car in the dead of night, upon the curb of a paved street, comparatively narrow, without lights, is a practical bid for trouble. The defendant promptly related the circumstances of the accident to the officers upon their first inquiry. These are not controverted by any other evidence. The evidence for the prosecution is concentrated upon the alleged condition of the defendant at the time of his discovery asleep in his car on the "side road." This is the major circumstance relied on. The claim for the prosecution is that the defendant was at that time in such an intoxicated condition as to disqualify him from driving an automobile at that time. From this circumstance a presumption or inference is contended for, that his then condition was a continuation of his former condition. The State is confronted here with the rule that a presumption does not travel backward. It looks forward only. This does not mean that the circumstance may not have its influence, in connection with other circumstances.

In this case, the evidence for the State as to the then condition of the defendant is involved in serious inconsistency, which should not be ignored. The defendant was found sound asleep in his car, and some energy was devoted by the sheriff to his waking. Two bottles of "near beer" were found in the car. It is not claimed that this content was intoxicating. Two empty bottles were found in the car. It is claimed that there was a smell of alcohol about these and about the breath of the defendant. The five persons present on this occasion testified as witnesses for the State. On the subject of the defendant's condition, their testimony may be briefly set forth. O'Rourke testified:

"Q. From the appearance and condition of the defendant there at that time, what would you say as to whether he had been drinking, previous to that time? A. I would say he appeared hazy."

Barnes testified:

"Q. Did you hear any question by the sheriff to the defendant and the defendant make any statements by the defendant as to where he had been, or about the accident up on the square? A. Why, the sheriff asked the defendant what had happened, and the defendant told him he had had an accident; that he knew whose car he had run into, and named O'Rourke's car. Q. Did he state from what direction he had come? What did he say about the direction he had come from? A. He came out from the alley north, and turned east, and didn't see the O'Rourke...