State v. Ostby
Decision Date | 12 March 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 37364.,37364. |
Citation | 203 Iowa 333,212 N.W. 550 |
Parties | STATE v. OSTBY. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hancock County; M. H. Kepler, Judge.
On petition for rehearing. Petition overruled.
For former opinion, see 210 N. W. 934.T. J. Enright, of Manson, C. L. Nichols and Oliver Gorden, both of Minneapolis, Minn., and J. E. Williams, of Mason City, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Atty. Gen., and Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Division I of the opinion filed in said cause on November 23, 1926, is amended by adding to said division the following:
[1] The appellant contends that said section of the statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Fifth Amendment is as follows:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury.”
In State v. Wells, 46 Iowa, 662, we said:
[2] The Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution is no limitation upon the power of the state to provide for prosecutions for infamous crimes without an indictment by a grand jury.
An amendment to the Constitution of the state, adopted in 1884, provides:
“The grand jury may consist of any number of members not less than five, nor more than fifteen, as the General Assembly may by law provide, or the General Assembly may provide for holding persons to answer for any criminal offense without the intervention of a Grand Jury.” Amendment 3.
The General Assembly has provided for holding persons to answer for a criminal offense without the intervention of a grand jury by county attorney's information.
Code 1924, § 13791, is not affected by the Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution, and does not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution of this state.
The reporter will insert the foregoing at the proper place in the official publication of the opinion in this cause....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bevins
...in the state. See preliminary statement in State v. Gregory, 198 Iowa, 316, 198 N. W. 58;State v. Ostby, 203 Iowa, 333, 210 N. W. 934, 212 N. W. 550;State v. Carter, 182 Iowa, 905, 164 N. W. 759;State v. Cadwell, 79 Iowa, 432, 44 N. W. 700, supra. There was no ambiguity in the aforesaid ins......
-
State ex rel. Fulton v. Scheetz
...But we have held this statute inapplicable where objections to evidence have been waived. State v. Ostby, 203 Iowa 333, 342, 210 N.W. 934, 212 N.W. 550.' We conclude defendant has no standing at this time to effectively complain with regard to the admission in evidence of Dr. Hege's ultimat......
-
State v. Bevins
... ... 31; State v ... Davis, 41 Iowa 311. Many times this court has referred ... to this particular offense as "fraudulent banking," ... and it is so known generally in the state. See preliminary ... statement in State v. Gregory, 198 Iowa 316, 198 ... N.W. 58; State v. Ostby, 203 Iowa 333, 210 N.W. 934; ... State v. Carter, 182 Iowa 905, 164 N.W. 759; ... State v. Cadwell (79 Iowa 432, 44 N.W. 700), supra ... There ... was no ambiguity in the aforesaid instruction, nor was there ... a variance between it and the indictment. Under the ... ...
-
State v. Wardenburg
...511, 113 N.W. 322, 324; State v. Caskey, 200 Iowa 1397, 1398, 206 N.W. 280, 281; and State v. Ostby, 203 Iowa 333, 338, 210 N.W. 934, 935, 212 N.W. 550, where the court said: 'We have also determined that venue may be proved by inference as well as by direct assertion by the witness (citing......