State v. Moore, No. 52651

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtSNELL
Citation156 N.W.2d 890,261 Iowa 1100
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. William Joel MOORE, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 52651
Decision Date05 March 1968

Page 890

156 N.W.2d 890
261 Iowa 1100
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
William Joel MOORE, Appellant.
No. 52651.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 5, 1968.

[261 Iowa 1101]

Page 891

Ben E. Kubby and John P. Roehrick, Des Moines, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ray Fenton, County Atty., for appellee.

SNELL, Justice.

Defendant has appealed from the judgment following a jury verdict of guilty of robbery as defined in sections 711.1 and 711.3, Code of Iowa.

Other than the identity of defendant as the man who committed the robbery much of the evidence appears without substantial controversy.

On January 21, 1967 the Adams Pharmacy in Des Moines was robbed. At the time Mr. Rex W. Kepford, an assistant manager, was in charge. He noticed a man near the candy counter. Mr. Kepford asked the supposed customer if he could help him. The customer said, 'No, he was just looking.' Mr. Kepford went to check out others at the cash register.

After the others had left the man approached Mr. Kepford at the cash register and asked for a small sack which was given to him. The man then told Mr. Kepford to fill the sack with the money from the cash register. Mr. Kepford complied. The man took the sack of money and left. The police were called and arrived in a short time.

Mr. Kepford testified that the man had one hand in his jacket pocket and Mr. Kepford thought he was armed. The point is of no importance here as there is no issue relative thereto and defendant was not charged with armed robbery.

Within a few minutes the police brought a man (not the defendant) into the pharmacy and asked Kepford to identify him, but 'it wasn't the fellow.' He was released.

[261 Iowa 1102] Shortly after receiving the police report police officer Duquette saw defendant, who answered the description of the robber, walking along the street. The officer drove along side defendant, stopped his car and got out. He asked defendant to identify himself. Defendant had no identification. He was asked to write his name which he did. Defendant was then asked to sit in the back seat of the patrol car.

Officer Duquette called for assistance and when it arrived he stated to the other officers that he felt that this man was the hold-up man. The officers asked defendant if he would be willing to go back to the drugstore and talk to the store manager.

Page 892

Defendant agreed to do so and went willingly.

On the way to the drugstore defendant was not placed under arrest and rode in the back seat. Officer Duquette testified that when they were driving to the drugstore he heard what reminded him of paper being rustled around in the defendant's boot and he thought that the defendant had placed something in his boot. Officer Duquette further testified that when the defendant stepped out of the car he could see down the boot and saw a large roll of money.

The officers and the defendant went into the drugstore. Kepford was asked if defendant was the robber. He said he 'didn't think so.'

Defendant was asked about a wad of money the officers saw in his boot. Defendant said he didn't know how much money was in the wad. He said, 'A good friend of his had given him the money,' but he 'didn't remember who it was.'

Defendant was asked to count the money and began doing so. During the counting of the money Mr. Kepford noticed a dollar bill with a corner torn out that appeared to be similar to one he had received from a customer shortly before the robbery. Defendant was placed under arrest, informed of his constitutional rights, taken to the police station and booked. He was again informed of his constitutional rights.

Following the arrest, two police officers went to an apartment near Fifth and Locust to verify defendant's story that he was staying there and had been to that apartment. When they arrived they were unable to locate anyone and so left and passed this information on to the detectives.

[261 Iowa 1103] Two detectives who apparently knew who to look for from the names given them located Donna Reed in a nearby tavern. As a result of a conversation with her she accompanied the detectives to the apartment where she unlocked the door and allowed them to enter. While in the apartment with Donna Reed's permission the detectives picked up a small paper sack out of the waste paper basket in the kitchen and observed and took possession of a gray jacket and a dark colored pair of pants in the bedroom on top of several boxes of clothes.

No search warrant had been issued for the apartment. There was no consent to enter except from Donna Reed.

Prior to trial the defendant moved to suppress all evidence incident to the defendant's arrest and all evidence relative to the search of the apartment of Mrs. Jenkins and Donna Reed.

The nub of defendant's complaint involves his standing to object to a search of an apartment room that he was not actually occupying when consent to enter was given by a tenant in possession. The factual situation is important.

A Mrs. Doris Jenkins and a Donna Reed were occupying an apartment rented in the name of Mrs. Jenkins, but with both tenants' names appearing on the door and the tenants sharing equally in the payment of the rent. It appears without question these two ladies were the rightful occupants of the apartment and in possession thereof. Each had a key.

Donna Reed had moved out before trial herein and was not available as a witness.

Mrs. Jenkins testified that on January 21, 1967...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Levy, No. 52602
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 18, 1968
    ...home. This was a lawful entry. Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 41, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 894; State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 150 N.W.2d 621, 625; State v. Polton, 259 Iowa 435, 440--443, 143 N.W.2d 307; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seiz......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...is upon one challenging evidential use of the products of a nonconsent search to prove they were illegally obtained. See State v. Moore, 261 Iowa 1100, 1105, 156 N.W.2d 890 In light of the foregoing, this summarized analysis of Strand's affidavit in support of the warrant application is ess......
  • State v. Cullison, No. 53491
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 13, 1970
    ...and observes illegalities or contraband, he may testify as to that fact in a criminal proceeding related thereto. State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 893; State v. Peterson, Iowa, 155 N.W.2d 412, 415; State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 763, 150 N.W.2d 621, To hold here that the parole officer ......
  • State v. Baych, No. 53420
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 24, 1969
    ...by voluntary consent or as incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Brant, Iowa, 150 N.W.2d 621, 624, and citations; State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 893. The search here was without a warrant. Was it made pursuant to a voluntary consent? Was it made as incident to a lawful arrest? Was it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Levy, No. 52602
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 18, 1968
    ...home. This was a lawful entry. Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 41, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 1634, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 894; State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 150 N.W.2d 621, 625; State v. Polton, 259 Iowa 435, 440--443, 143 N.W.2d 307; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seiz......
  • State v. Birkestrand, No. 57108
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 18, 1976
    ...is upon one challenging evidential use of the products of a nonconsent search to prove they were illegally obtained. See State v. Moore, 261 Iowa 1100, 1105, 156 N.W.2d 890 In light of the foregoing, this summarized analysis of Strand's affidavit in support of the warrant application is ess......
  • State v. Cullison, No. 53491
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 13, 1970
    ...and observes illegalities or contraband, he may testify as to that fact in a criminal proceeding related thereto. State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 893; State v. Peterson, Iowa, 155 N.W.2d 412, 415; State v. Brant, 260 Iowa 758, 763, 150 N.W.2d 621, To hold here that the parole officer ......
  • State v. Baych, No. 53420
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 24, 1969
    ...by voluntary consent or as incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Brant, Iowa, 150 N.W.2d 621, 624, and citations; State v. Moore, Iowa, 156 N.W.2d 890, 893. The search here was without a warrant. Was it made pursuant to a voluntary consent? Was it made as incident to a lawful arrest? Was it......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT