State v. Myers, 50440

Citation253 Iowa 271,111 N.W.2d 660
Decision Date14 November 1961
Docket NumberNo. 50440,50440
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Francis Everett MYERS, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Life, Davis & Life, Oskaloosa, for appellant.

Evan Hultman, Atty. Gen., John H. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harold B. Heslinga, County Atty., Mahaska County, Oskaloosa, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Justice.

This is a ten dollar lawsuit. That was the amount of the fine assessed against the defendant in justice of the peace court; but, being firm in his opinion that justice had there been dispensed with rather than dispensed, he appealed to the district court, with the same, to him, undesirable result. So the matter is before us upon his further appeal from the judgment and sentence there imposed. Invoved, in addition to the ten dollars, is the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.

The defendant was charged in the justice court with the offense of failing to have a motor vehicle under control and failing to reduce its speed to a reasonable rate while approaching and traversing a bridge on a public highway, in violation of Section 321.288 of the 1958 Code of Iowa, I.C.A. In fact the charge seems to be violation of Section 321.288, subd. 3, which we quote:

'321.288 Control of Vehicle

'The person operating a motor vehicle or motorcycle shall have the same under control and shall reduce the speed to a reasonable and proper rate:

'1. * * *

'2. * * *

'3. When approaching and traversing a crossing or intersection of public highways, or a bridge, or a sharp turn, or a curve, or a steep descent, in a public highway.'

This section is implemented so far as the criminal element is concerned by Section 321.482, a general penalty clause which provides that a violation of any of the provisions of chapter 321, if a penalty is not otherwise specifically fixed, is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not to exceed $100 or by imprisonment of not to exceed thirty days. The defendant here was accused of having fallen afoul of these two sections of the code. He disagrees.

It is evident that before an accused may be convicted of violation of Section 321.288, subd. 3, supra, it must be made to appear by substantial evidence that he was driving a motor vehicle and that he failed to have it under control or to reduce speed to a reasonable rate. Both elements are essential. The defendant's assigned errors and argument all go to one point: that there was a failure of such proof. He raised the question by motion to direct at the close of the state's case. It was denied; he then rested and renewed his motion, with the same unsatisfactory ruling. Judgment of guilty was entered.

The sole question involved is factual. The state's evidence shows that on August 17, 1960, Walter Tharp, the sheriff of Mahaska County, went to the scene of an accident in that county. He found a bridge 'broken down' and a car on the floor of the bridge in the creek. It was a Plymouth automobile registered in the name of defendant's father. The sheriff observed car tracks which had left the roadway some 165 feet from the bridge and remained on the shoulder up to the bridge. There was white paint on the bridge and he saw white paint on the front end of the car.

Another witness testified that he saw the car lying on the collapsed portion of the bridge and 'then I turned around and went back and found this man. I met him going down there limping along the road. * * * So when I came back he was walking toward Hardemans. I asked if anyone was with him and he said 'no, he was alone.' We went to Mr. Hardeman's.' Hardeman lived about one-half mile from the scene of the accident. The witness then said he took the defendant to the hospital. 'He was in very bad shape. He couldn't talk much.'

This is the substance of the state's evidence which has, or is claimed to have, any tendency to connect the defendant with the automobile found on the bridge or to show failure of control or excessive speed as it approached the bridge. How long the car had been on the bridge before it was discovered, how far the defendant was from the scene of the accident, or how many might have been in the car when it struck the bridge we are not told. On the latter point, the state urges the testimony set out above that the defendant said, when picked up, that 'he was alone.' To what time the question related we are not advised; whether at the time of the accident, or at the time he was found walking along the road is not clear. We think as put to the defendant it did not advise him that it had reference to the time of the accident.

The state urges that jury questions may be generated in criminal cases solely by circumstantial evidence. This is firmly established. State v. Hiatt, 231 Iowa 499, 507, 1 N.W.2d 664, 668, and citations. But any evidence, circumstantial or direct, must be sufficient to raise a fair inference of guilt. It must generate something more than suspicion, or speculation, or conjecture. 'We cannot permit a verdict of guilty to stand where there is absence of proof of any of the essential elements of the crime charged.' State v. Poffenbarger, 247 Iowa 552, 554, 74 N.W.2d 585, 586, and cases cited.

The state relies upon State v. Poffenbarger, supra,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • State v. Kittelson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1969
    ...therein may be inferred from presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed.' State v. Myers, supra (253 Iowa 271, 111 N.W.2d 660), 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, §§ 87 and We need not again review the evidence extensively to conclude a jury case was made on the la......
  • State v. McClelland
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 14 Enero 1969
    ...to raise a fair inference of guilt. It must generate something more than suspicion, speculation or conjecture. State v. Myers, 253 Iowa 271, 274, 111 N.W.2d 660, 662; State v. Daves, 259 Iowa 584, 586, 144 N.W.2d 879, In a criminal case, however, the cause should be submitted to the jury an......
  • State v. Daves
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 20 Septiembre 1966
    ...to raise a fair inference of guilt. It must generate something more than suspicion, or speculation, or conjecture. State v. Myers, 253 Iowa 271, 274, 111 N.W.2d 660, 662; State v. Saling, 177 Iowa 552, 563, 159 N.W. 255, 259; State v. Whisler, 231 Iowa 1216, 1226, 3 N.W.2d 525, With these r......
  • State v. Evans
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1969
    ...to raise a fair inference of guilt. It must generate something more than suspicion, speculation or conjecture. State v. Myers, 253 Iowa 271, 274, 111 N.W.2d 660, 662; State v. Daves, 259 Iowa 584, 586, 144 N.W.2d 879, 'In a criminal case, however, the cause should be submitted to the jury a......
  • 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