State v. Tarr

• Decision Date: 15 June 1943
• Docket Number: 46203.
• Citation: 10 N.W.2d 55,233 Iowa 659
• Parties: STATE v. TARR.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

10 N.W.2d 55

233 Iowa 659

STATE v. TARR.

No. 46203.

Supreme Court of Iowa

June 15, 1943

Henry H. Griffiths, of Des Moines, for appellant.

John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., Don Hise, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis J. Kuble, Co. Atty., and Ralph D. Moore, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Des Moines, for appellee.

BLISS Justice.

As noted, the accusation against the defendant was by a county attorney information filed in a municipal court, in which he was adjudged guilty and sentenced upon his plea that he was guilty of the crime charged. In this court, the defendant, as appellant, assigns error, asking a reversal of the judgment and his dismissal, in the following respects: (1) The information filed in the municipal court was void as being beyond the power of the county attorney; (2) the municipal court had no jurisdiction to receive or file such information, or of the subject matter therein referred to, or of the person of the defendant, or to enter judgment; (3) there was never any legal presentment of a charge of crime or valid proceeding relative thereto, or jurisdiction in the municipal court of the subject matter, or of the person of the appellant.

These grounds are all based upon appellant's proposition that under the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Iowa there is no jurisdiction in the municipal, or in any other court to entertain a charge against one accused by a county attorney information. Appellant refers to the provisions in amendment 5 of the Constitution of the United States, and in section 11, article 1 of the State Constitution, respecting presentment or indictment by a grand jury. He also calls attention to amendment 3, of 1884, to the constitution of Iowa, providing that: "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." (Italics supplied.)

It is the appellant's contention that the word, "or," clearly indicates that the General Assembly may provide for one of two things, either reduce the usual number of the grand jury, or for criminal charges without the intervention of a grand jury, and that it has no power to do both. Appellant further insists that the General Assembly, in reducing the number of grand jurors by its enactment in chapter 42, Acts of the 21st General Assembly, exhausted its power under the aforesaid constitutional amendment, and that the passage in 1911 of Chapter 188 of the Acts of the 34th General Assembly, now Chapter 634 of the Iowa Code, giving to the district court the power to entertain, and to the county attorney the power to file, informations charging felonies as well as misdemeanors, was without constitutional authority and the act is void. Reasoning from these premises, the appellant asserts that Chapter 219 of the Acts of the 42nd General Assembly, which amends said Chapter 634 of the Code, so as to permit the filing of a county attorney information in...