State v. Little
| Decision Date | 14 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 52900,52900 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Herbert Charles LITTLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Donald E. Gartin, Mount Pleasant, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and William A. Claerhout, Asst. Atty., Gen., for appellee.
Defendant appeals from his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Section 321.281, Code of Iowa, 1966, on the ground of jury misconduct. Since no other issue is before us, an extended recitation of the facts is unnecessary, and we limit our discussion to those matters bearing on the single assigned error.
On March 16, 1967, defendant drove his car into a ditch on U.S. highway 34 just east of Mount Pleasant, Iowa. He was observed by the State's principal witness, Don Long, whose home is approximately 100 feet from where the event occurred. Mr. Long watched the defendant for a time from his living room window. He then called the police, who came to the scene and arrested defendant. When arrested, defendant was out of his car and was standing nearby. It was Mr. Long who identified defendant as the driver of the vehicle and who stated he was its sole occupant. Defendant challenged this testimony by attempting to show Mr. Long's vantage point did not afford a complete view of the area. Hence, defendant argues, there is an insufficient showing that he was the only occupant of the car or its driver. This testimony becomes important later in connection with the charge of jury misconduct.
Subsequent to defendant's conviction, he filed motion for new trial on various grounds. The only portion thereof which is important here is that which deals with alleged misconduct of the jury. The motion asserted the following:
'The defendant has been denied of his right of equal protection of the law and of his right to trial by an impartial and fair jury in that: a. Misconduct of the jury occurred when several members of the jury made unauthorized trips to the scene of defendant's arrest for the express purpose of a view of the scene and were influenced by their observations and in turn influenced others of the jury, the verdict not being based solely on the evidence admitted in the record. * * *'
As part of this motion there were attached three affidavits by individual jurors. The affidavit of Eleanor Almond says at least one juror visited the area at which defendant was taken into custody and that this 'was discussed in the jury room.' The affidavit then states, 'I believe the jury verdict may have been influenced by these visits and the views of the scene of the defendant's arrest.' The affidavit of Earl McAllister was substantially to the same effect. The third affidavit pertains to other matters which are not raised on this appeal and may be disregarded.
A hearing was held, at the conclusion of which the trial court overruled defendant's motion for new trial because there was no showing of prejudice from the unauthorized view of the premises.
It may be conceded that the visit to the scene of the arrest by the individual juror or jurors who did so was improper and constituted misconduct. Section 780.15, Code of Iowa, 1966, prescribes the only method by which the scene of the crime or the place where some material fact is said to have occurred may properly come under jury surveillance. This section permits the court to have the jury view such place in a body under the supervision of a court appointed official. This procedure was not followed in the present case, and the conduct of the juror or jurors who undertook independently to visit the scene...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hall
...Jackson, 195 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 1972). See also Townsend v. Mid-America Pipeline Co., 168 N.W.2d 30, 36 (Iowa 1969); State v. Little, 164 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Iowa 1969). Cf. King v. Barrett, 185 N.W.2d 210, 213 (Iowa We believe the trial court properly ruled against defendant on this alleged ......
-
King v. Barrett
...jeopardized. Situations of the kind to which we refer are illustrated by Mead v. Scott, 256 Iowa 1285, 130 N.W.2d 641, and State v. Little, 164 N.W.2d 81 (Iowa). But the present situation goes beyond those cases. Here a juror test-drove the road, made observations at variance with those of ......
-
Wiedenfeld v. Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co.
...Inc. v. Standard Brands, Inc., 204 N.W.2d 579, 584-586 (Iowa 1973); King v. Barrett, 185 N.W.2d 210, 213 (Iowa 1971); State v. Little, 164 N.W.2d 81, 83 (Iowa 1969); Mead v. Scott, 256 Iowa 1285, 1290, 130 N.W.2d 641, 644 (1964); Hamdorf v. Corrie, 251 Iowa 896, 913-914, 101 N.W.2d 836, 846......
-
State v. Feddersen
...appear the misconduct was calculated to and probably did influence the verdict. See State v. Houston, 209 N.W.2d at 45; State v. Little, 164 N.W.2d 81, 82--83 (Iowa 1969). Furthermore, we have said a trial court has broad discretion in determining whether claimed misconduct on the part of a......