State v. Small
| Decision Date | 25 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 32299 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. LEW SMALL, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--HENRY SILWOLD, Judge.
THE defendant appeals from conviction of having resisted an officer.--Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and Remanded.
Dan Davis, for appellant.
H. M Havner, Attorney General, for appellee.
The defendant is charged with having resisted arrest by a policeman without a warrant. His offense is said to be the "using of loud, boisterous, obscene, and abusive language in a public place, and disturbing the peace and quiet of the community, and acting in a riotous, indecent and unlawful manner."
The policeman testified, in substance, that defendant entered one Snyder's pool hall and asked for pop, saying that "this was to put into some more alcohol," and, applying an epithet to the officer, added that he could not take that away from him; that the witness responded that no one had said anything about doing so; that Snyder then asked defendant to leave, and he refused; whereupon the witness advised him to go home, as he did not care about arresting him, and defendant answered that he would not do it; that there were not enough policemen in town to arrest him, upon which the witness told him he was under arrest, and took hold of him; that a scuffle ensued, in which defendant struck the witness, and got him by the neck, and both fell; that defendant then said that, if he were allowed to get up, he would go with witness like a man; but, upon arising, struck at the witness, and went out the door, threatening the witness if he followed him, and went to his home.
The defendant admitted entering the pool hall to purchase a couple of bottles of pop, and testified that, when he called for it, the officer suggested that he must be going to change to color of his drink; that defendant replied that it was none of his (the officer's) business; that one word brought on another, and finally the officer attempted to hit defendant with his club, and told him to go home; and he did go home, and the officer came down to his house; that the officer said nothing about arresting him; that he had not been drinking,--had no alcohol there; that he was in the hall not to exceed two minutes, and went straight home, and said nothing after he left the hall.
From this evidence, the jury might have found the controversy to have been solely between the officer and defendant; that the defendant was innocent of wrong-doing; and that no public offense was committed in the presence of the officer. An officer may make an arrest without a warrant:
"(1) For a...
To continue reading
Request your trial