State v. Stodola

Citation257 Iowa 863,134 N.W.2d 920
Decision Date04 May 1965
Docket NumberNo. 51628,51628
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. James STODOLA, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Thomas L. Woods, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Lawrence F. Scalise, Atty. Gen., and Don R. Bennett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GARFIELD, Chief Justice.

Defendant was charged by county attorney's information, tried by the court and found guilty of the crime of injuring or tampering with a vehicle, to wit an automobile, in violation of section 321.78, Code 1962, I.C.A. From the judgment, as provided by section 321.482, sentencing him to the county jail for 30 days, suspended until further order of the court, defendant has appealed. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that he acted willfully and without consent of the owner.

Section 321.78, in pertinent part, provides: 'Any person who * * * willfully injuries or tampers with any vehicle * * * without the consent of the owner is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable as provided in section 321.482.' We find sufficient evidence the statute was violated.

I. William Kindred, the complaining witness, uncle of defendant's wife, testified he drove his automobile past defendant's farm when the latter was mowing weeds in the roadside ditch, defendant jumped off his mowing machine, picked up a handful of rocks, threw them at the car as hard as he could, the rocks struck and damaged the car, making a hole in the windshield. Kindred stopped his car and defendant ran toward it, wanting to fight.

Deputy Sheriff Burt testified he was riding with Kindred at the latter's request because he feared he would be 'run off the road' by defendant, Burt was lying in the back seat when there was a splash of rocks on the car, at Burt's direction Kindred stopped his car, defendant approached with his arm drawn back, 'he was saying plenty.' Photographs of the car showing the hole in the windshield were received in evidence. State v. Poffenbarger, 247 Iowa 552, 554, hole in the windshield when her husband, with Officer Burt, returned home the evening of the occurrence and no hole was there previously.

Defendant admitted Kindred drove past his farm while the former was mowing weeds at the side of the road, Kindred stopped his car and defendant went toward it. He denied throwing rocks at the car and injury to it. His version of what happened is that if rocks struck the automobile they were thrown by the nower, not by him. To illustrate the throwing capacity of the mower he said if it struck a beer can in the ditch the can would be thrown two or three hundred feet.

Defendant's wife testified she was in the front yard, 40 or 50 rods from where her husband was mowing, and he did not get off the mower until Kindred's car stopped.

It is evidence the trial court believed the state's version of the occurrence.

II. Defendant moved for a dismissal, the equivalent of a motion for directed verdict if the trial were to a jury, at the close of the state's evidence. Any error in overruling the motion was waived by failure to renew it at the close of all the evidence. Ver Steegh v. Flaugh, 251 Iowa 1011, 1020, 103 N.W.2d 718, 724, and citations.

Nevertheless we will not let a finding of guilt stand where there is an absence of proof of any essential element of the crime charged. State v. Myers, 253 Iowa 271, 274, 111 N.W.2d 660, 662. A conviction notwithstanding such absence of proof amounts to denial of a fair trial. State v. Poffenbarger, 247 Iowa, 552, 554, 74 N.W.2d 585, 586, and citations.

The rules governing our consideration of a claim of insufficient evidence to support a conviction need hardly be stated. Of course the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the state. It is the fact-finder's function ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • State v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 18, 2022
    ...most favorable to it, does not furnish substantial support for the verdict," then "the case must be reversed"); State v. Stodola , 257 Iowa 863, 134 N.W.2d 920, 921 (1965) ; Poffenbarger , 74 N.W.2d at 586 ; State v. Dolson , 188 Iowa 629, 176 N.W. 678, 678 (1920) ("We have frequently held ......
  • State v. Carey
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1969
    ...in the light most favorable to the State. State v. Wesson, 260 Iowa 331, 149 N.W.2d 190, 192 and citations; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 865, 134 N.W.2d 920, 921; State v. Harless, 249 Iowa 530, 532, 86 N.W.2d 210, 211. Defendant's argument is directed toward the circumstances under whic......
  • State v. Kittelson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1969
    ...is an absence of proof on an essential element of the crime charged. State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 865, 134 N.W.2d 920. We have examined this record with care and are convinced there was sufficient evidence, direct and circumstantial, to su......
  • State v. Crawford
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • March 18, 2022
    ... ... "if it appears the State's evidence, viewed in a ... light most favorable to it, does not furnish substantial ... support for the verdict, " ... then "the case must be reversed"); State v ... Stodola , 134 N.W.2d 920, 921 (Iowa 1965); ... Poffenbarger , 74 N.W.2d at 586; State v ... Dolson , 176 N.W. 678, 678 (Iowa 1920) ("We have ... frequently held that, though by reason of a waiver the case ... stands as though there had been no motion to direct, yet ... ...
  • 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