State v. Whitehead, 60502
| Decision Date | 25 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 60502,60502 |
| Citation | 277 N.W.2d 887 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Kenneth L. WHITEHEAD, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Garry D. Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, HARRIS and McGIVERIN, JJ.
Defendant Whitehead, former Jasper County attorney, was indicted for violating § 723.1, The Code 1975 (). Upon trial the jury found him not guilty and the State appeals. Of course, an appeal by the State "in no case stays the operation of a judgment in favor of the defendant." § 793.9, The Code. See § 814.12, The Code 1979.
This prosecution arose out of an incident which occurred September 29, 1976. Newton police traced a stolen coat to Julie Waddell, a twenty-year-old woman who had been in prior trouble and who apparently was known by defendant. A police officer described the evidence collected to defendant, who agreed it was sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant for Waddell's house and car. Within a short time defendant made arrangements to meet Waddell in a city park. The evidence is uncontroverted he there told her the police were going to search her property that afternoon and if she had any stolen property to remove it. She then took the coat to a friend from whom it was recovered later by the police.
The State contended, and introduced other evidence from which the jury could have found, that defendant sabotaged the search operation with the expectation of obtaining sexual favors from Waddell. Defendant asserted, and there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded, his motive was to make Waddell an informant so police could recapture her husband, a prison escapee wanted in Jasper County on felony charges.
Trial court's instruction eight informed the jury that defendant at all material times was Jasper County attorney, "the chief law enforcement officer of the county." It further provided:
Every county attorney in this State is vested with broad, although not unlimited, discretion as to the manner in and the means by which the laws of the State shall be enforced. This limited discretion extends to the proper institution and termination of investigations. A county attorney may, with the approval of the Court, dismiss a criminal charge or negotiate a plea to a reduced charge. He may, in his discretion, elect not to file a criminal charge. These powers are known in law as prosecutorial discretion.
You may consider this discretionary power, together with all the evidence in the case, in determining whether the defendant acted Improperly.
(Emphasis added.) "Improperly" related to instruction seven, in which the jury was told, among other things, the State must prove defendant improperly obstructed or impeded execution of the search warrant.
The State objected to instruction eight on the ground that prosecutorial discretion was irrelevant. The State contended the doctrine did not carry the right to obstruct a court order being executed by another peace officer or the right to interfere with the latter in the performance of statutory duties. A substitute instruction urged by the State specifically provided: "(P) rosecutorial discretion does not extend to interference with a court order."
Trial court overruled State's objections to instructions and refused its request. The jury acquitted defendant.
Appealing, the State urges we should reject the legal concept trial court incorporated in instruction eight. But before the merits of State's contentions can be reached we must resolve a threshold issue.
The law in force at the time of these events gave the State permission to appeal in a criminal case. § 793.1, The Code. But by long-standing case law in this jurisdiction an appeal by the State is permitted only if it "involves questions of law, either substantive or procedural, whose determination will be beneficial to the bench and bar as a guide in the future." State v. Warren, 216 N.W.2d 326, 327...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
...in sustaining the motion to dismiss. I. We have examined these proceedings in light of the rule most recently applied in State v. Whitehead, 277 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 1979), to determine whether the State may pursue this appeal as a matter of right. See §§ 793.1, 793.9, The Code 1977. We find in......
-
State v. Allen
...it involved a question of law whose determination would be beneficial to the bench and bar as a guide in the future. State v. Whitehead, 277 N.W.2d 887, 888 (Iowa 1979). Thus section 814.5(2)(d), which authorizes discretionary review of a final judgment "raising a question of law important ......