State v. Traas
| Decision Date | 17 June 1941 |
| Docket Number | 45565. |
| Citation | 298 N.W. 862,230 Iowa 826 |
| Parties | STATE v. TRAAS. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hancock County; M. H. Kepler, Judge.
The defendant was tried on an indictment charging him with the crime of arson in the burning of a dwelling house, owned by another, and occupied by himself and family. The State appeals from a judgment for the defendant entered on a verdict of " not guilty" returned at the direction of the court, at the close of all of the evidence.
Reversed.
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., Jens Grothe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clark E. Lovrien, Co. Atty., and Frank W. Senneff, Sp Prosecutor, both of Britt, for appellant.
L. R Boomhower, of Mason City, for appellee.
The defendant operated a restaurant and beer tavern in a two-story frame building in the town of Crystal Lake, Hancock County, Iowa. In addition to the rooms occupied by the family, he kept two or three rooms for occasional transients. He owned the stock of merchandise, the furniture, counters and other equipment used in his business, and also his household goods. The building and its contents were totally destroyed by fire in the very early morning of June 2, 1940 shortly after he had closed, a little after midnight. He was charged with willfully and maliciously burning the property. He was indicted for the burning of the building. Shortly after the trial, a County Attorney's information was filed charging him with the felonious burning of the contents of the building. The trial of the latter charge is awaiting our decision of this appeal. It is because of the pending charge and trial that the State is strenuously urging us to review the record and to pass upon the errors assigned for reversal.
While the State may appeal from a judgment adverse to it in a criminal case (1939 Code, Section 13994), the decision of this court, on such an appeal, is circumscribed by Section 14012, which 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." Under the provisions of this section and our decisions, the judgment of the trial court is a finality with respect to the discharge of the defendant. He cannot again be tried for the offense charged in that indictment. State v. Kinney, 44 Iowa 444; State v. Vail, 57 Iowa 103, 10 N.W. 297; State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984; State v. Jackson, 128 Iowa 543, 105 N.W. 51; State v. Gilbert, 138 Iowa 335, 116 N.W. 142; State v. Keeler, 28 Iowa 551; State v. Johnson, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458; State v. Kirkman, 206 Iowa 364, 220 N.W. 57; State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254; State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220; State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080.
As stated in some of the above-mentioned cases, and in others, this court, in appeals by the State in criminal cases, has generally refused to review the testimony as a whole to determine whether the trial court erred in ruling that the evidence was insufficient to justify a submission of the case to the jury. Since the defendant cannot be again tried for the same offense, it would serve no purpose to pass upon errors respecting matters of fact which could be of no benefit in the trial of criminal cases in the future. State v. Little, 210 Iowa 371, 228 N.W. 67; State v. Friend, 213 Iowa 544, 239 N.W. 132; State v. Tibbetts, 213 Iowa 552, 239 N.W. 133; State v. Niehaus, 209 Iowa 533, 228 N.W. 308; State v. Gilbert, supra; State v. Kirkman, supra; State v. Mackey, 82 Iowa 393, 48 N.W. 918. But as also stated in the cases cited, if the appeal involves questions of law, either substantive or procedural, whose determination will be beneficial generally, or guide the trial courts in the future, the decisions of this court thereon will be obligatory as law. See, also, State v. Drain, 205 Iowa 581, 218 N.W. 269; State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220; State v. Ward, 75 Iowa 637, 36 N.W. 765; State v. Johnson, 200 Iowa 324, 204 N.W. 273; State v. Johnson, supra, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458. As stated in State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 245, 225 N.W. 254, 257, in such cases:
Summarizing the facts briefly in this case, we find that the record shows quite conclusively: that the defendant from about the year 1931, in addition to the fire involved here, had had two houses burn, in which he was living, the last one in 1939; he had a barn burn in which there was considerable machinery and a carload of onions; the onions, he claimed, were not insured; he lost a new Nash car by fire; whether it was insured or not, does not appear; there was no objection to the testimony about other fires; he collected insurance on the other three fires; in November, 1939, he rented and moved into the building in Crystal Lake; the lease was for a year, and the rent of $260 was all to be paid in advance; he paid $169 in advance, which would cover the rental to about July 1, 1940; he was having some controversy with the landlord about the payment of the remaining rent, repairs on the place, and some difficulty because the landlord refused the use of a vacant lot for outdoor moving pictures; a tenant in the rooms adjoining the building, occupied by defendant, testified that in the spring of 1940, the defendant told him the building should be burned, and it was going to be, and asked the witness (tenant) if he had insurance on his household goods; this tenant moved his goods out in the early morning of May 31, 1940, between 12:30 o'clock and 5:30 o'clock; defendant took his wife and children to Boonville on Memorial Day, May 30, 1940, and on returning without them the following day asked the tenant if he had moved his goods; in the fall of 1939, defendant purchased the restaurant stock, equipment, household goods, beds, etc., for about $300; he added some to it, and on May 14, 1940, he insured the stock for $400, the fixtures, etc., for $600, and the household goods for $1,000; the insurance agent never examined the property; quite a number of household articles, pictures, albums, bedding, heirlooms, and other small articles, none of much value, but many of which had been in the building during the week preceding the fire, were found in a trunk and a box of the defendant in a garage which he rented nearby, although there was an empty storeroom in the building occupied by him; on the nights of May 30th, 31st, and June 1st, business men, in pairs, spent the night in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial