State v. Mead, 46779.

• Citation: 22 N.W.2d 222,237 Iowa 475
• Decision Date: 02 April 1946
• Docket Number: No. 46779.,46779.
• Parties: STATE v. MEAD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

237 Iowa 475

22 N.W.2d 222

STATE

v.MEAD.

No. 46779.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 2, 1946.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; D. C. Browning, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the verdict and judgment against him on a charge of assault with intent to rob.

Affirmed.

George W. Kephart and E. O. Bundy, both of Sioux City, for appellant.

John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., of Iowa, Charles H. Scholz, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward L. Moran, Co. Atty., Woodbury County, of Sioux City, for appellee.

MULRONEY, Justice.

The defendant, Cecil Mead, and his brother John were accused in an indictment of the crime of assault with intent to rob one Howard Reed. The separate trial of Cecil Mead resulted in a verdict of guilty. Motions in arrest of judgment, and for new trial, and exceptions to instructions were overruled and defendant was sentenced and committed to the penitentiary as provided by law. Upon this appeal the defendant devotes two and a half pages to an enumeration of the 14 errors relied upon for reversal. The charged errors assail nearly all of the trial court's 17 instructions to the jury, for the reasons set forth in defendant's exceptions to the instructions referring to the portion of the abstract where the exceptions are set forth. None of the alleged errors are argued. There are no brief points or divisions where the claimed errors are even discussed.

The rule is well established that errors assigned which are not argued are deemed waived. State v. Harding, 204 Iowa 1135, 216 N.W. 642;State v. Neifert, 206 Iowa 384, 220 N.W. 32.

Following the list of errors relied on for reversal the brief sets forth some citations to Iowa decisions and copies of Iowa statutes, without any indication as to which of the several errors the authorities are applicable. The three-line argument that follows the authorities is as follows: ‘Defendant contends the case never should have gone to the jury for a variety of reasons hereinbefore and hereafter set out, anyone of which is sufficiently weighty to be conclusive.’ The remaining two or three pages of defendant's brief contain some short statements of abstract propositions of law, usually with one supporting authority, but there is no statement indicating that the proposition stated is applicable to any of the claimed errors. The attorney general in his brief states that he is in ‘utter confusion as to what appellant is actually relying upon and here presenting as a basis for a reversal.’ We share his confusion. The following comment of Justice Evans of this court in State v. Brodi, Iowa, 200 N.W. 180, is much in point: ‘The argument filed for appellant discloses no apparent effort to comply with our rules. The errors relied on for reversal are not made to appear therein except by reference to the abstract. No brief point brings to our attention any particular error to which it is directed. A reading of such argument from beginning to end leaves us without any knowledge whatever whether any error was committed. The argument appears to have been written in reliance upon our examination of the abstract for a discovery of the particular errors.'

...