State v. Stuart
| Decision Date | 10 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 48122,48122 |
| Citation | 57 N.W.2d 238,244 Iowa 604 |
| Parties | STATE v. STUART. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Robert L. Larson, Atty. Gen., Raphael R. R. Dvorak, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Wallace W. Huff, Woodbury County Atty., Sioux City, for appellant.
Frank J. Margolin, R. N. Jepson and Ray E. Rieke, of Sioux City, for appellee.
On September 2, 1951, John Rickwa was arrested on a street in Sioux City for intoxication. City Police Officer, Carl Stuart, and another officer placed Rickwa in a patrol wagon. This patrol wagon is described as a 'half-ton delivery truck made into a cage.' It has grilles over the windows and it has double doors in the rear with locks on them. John Rickwa was locked in the patrol wagon and the officers drove to the Municipal Building which houses the city jail. The officers drove to that part of the building called the garage identified as room 'O', which appears to be an outer room with large doors used almost entirely for the purpose of parking police department vehicles and loading and unloading prisoners. When the officers unlocked the patrol wagon John Rickwa fled through the open door of the garage. Officer Stuart pursued Rickwa, shouted several times for him to stop and fired his gun three times in the air. Stuart fired the fourth time at Rickwa's legs. The fourth shot struck Rickwa's right leg, severed an artery and Rickwa died the next day.
Officer Carl Stuart was indicted, tried and acquitted of the crime of manslaughter, based on the killing of Rickwa. The state appeals, asserting error in instruction 13 where the court stated: 'You are instructed that a jail is a building or place for the confinement of arrested or sentenced persons and that it is the further law of this state that a person who is confined in jail and breaks jail and escapes therefrom, is guilty of a felony, and that the court holds as a matter of law under the evidence herein that the confinement of the deceased, Joseph John Rickwa, in the patrol wagon within the confines of that part of the Sioux City Municipal Building used by the Sioux City Police Department constituted confinement in jail of the deceased, Joseph John Rickwa, and that the breaking jail and escaping of the deceased Joseph John Rickwa from custody after being so confined in jail amounted to a felony on the part of the said Joseph John Rickwa.'
The law the instruction has reference to is Section 745.8, Code 1950, I.C.A., making it a felony 'If any person confined in any jail upon any criminal charge, either before or after conviction for a criminal offense, break jail and escape therefrom * * *.'
The county attorney argues the court was in error in instructing the jury the escapee was escaping from, or after being confined in, a jail. He does not argue that the court should have instructed the jury Rickwa was not escaping from jail. The point was important in the trial because of the rule that a peace officer is justified in using a deadly weapon to prevent the escape of a felon. The county attorney argues that under the record the question should have been submitted to the jury and we are asked to review the assigned error because: (1) 'Municipal Court officers of Sioux City are awaiting the outcome of this appeal to determine what rules they should lay down for the future use of the room in the Municipal Building designated as room 'O'; (2) The County Attorney's office is interested in whether a future misdemeanant, who has been taken into custody with or without a warrant, and who escapes from a patrol wagon, should be charged with breaking jail; (3) And police officers throughout the state are vitally interested in a determination of their right to use a deadly weapon to prevent the escape of a prisoner under circumstances such as are here presented.'
Since the defendant was acquitted, any judgment we might render in the case would not affect him. Section 793.1, Code 1950, I.C.A., gives the state the right to appeal in a criminal case and Section 793.20, Code 1950, I.C.A., provides:
'If the state appeals, the supreme court cannot reverse or modify the judgment so as to increase the punishment, but may affirm it, and shall point out any error in the proceedings or in the measure of punishment, and its decision shall be obligatory as law.'
In State v. Little, 210 Iowa 371, 228 N.W. 67, 68, we held the above section 'limits somewhat the scope of the review when the appeal is by the state.' There we said:
The opinion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kriens
...which may be of use of the court and the profession in the administration of the criminal law.' In the recent case of State v. Stuart, 244 Iowa 604, 607, 57 N.W.2d 238, we referred to the views expressed in the Little case and came to the conclusion that it is settled in Iowa that an appeal......
-
State v. Whitehead, 60502
...on Professional Ethics and Conduct v. Crary, 245 N.W.2d 298, 307 (Iowa 1976). The Iowa decision most comparable is State v. Stuart, 244 Iowa 604, 57 N.W.2d 238 (1953). In Stuart, a criminal case, the State appealed on the ground trial court erroneously instructed the jury relating to a law ......
- State v. Dahnke