Transcribe
Translate
State v. Katz, 1949
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
[Christina Trigoutis ?] 40 N.W.2d 41 http://web2.westlaw.com/shared/text.wl?...rvice= Find&cfid=0&RS=WLW2.09&VR=2.0&n=1 these treated piecemeal. See however, State v. Heinz, 223 Iowa 1241, 275 N.W. 10, 114 A.I.R.959; State v. Mart, 237 Iowa 181, 20 N.W.2d 63. When read together with the other instructions, we find no error in instructions No. 3 and 4. [10] In refusing requested instructions No.3 and 4, no error was committed as the trial court gave the substance thereof in its instructions. (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *120, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) [11] V. Finally, appellant assigns as error the giving instructions No.8. The instruction said in part: 'there is no dispute that the defendant was the manager of the Katz Drug Store here in Des Moines, Iowa, that the refusal, if there was one, was made by the defendant's servant who was a waitress in his employ and and who came forward and talked to John Bibbs at the time.' The objection is that the instruction erroneously emphasized the testimony of the state's witnesses, erroneously accepted as correct their testimony, and gave undue prominence to the state's case. The language used by the trial court in the above instruction is unfortunate, but under the record herein we do not find it to be in error. While under a plea of not guilty all of the material allegations of the charge are denied, and the matter of refusal and by whom, are material and require proof, no prejudice to appellant exists by stating that there is no dispute regarding the same. This is because no where in the record is there any denial of the statement made by the state's witnesses that they were refused service by an employee of appellant, and for the further reason, that appellant submitted his case upon the sole theory that service was denied due to to disturbances created by the three Negroes. This theory was submitted to the jury by the court in its instructions and the jury found against appellant thereon. *121 (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *121, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) Finding no error sufficient to warrant a reversal, the judgement of the trail court should be and is affirmed. (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *121, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) Affirmed. All Justices concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 7of 7 3/29/00 2:40 PM
Saving...
prev
next
[Christina Trigoutis ?] 40 N.W.2d 41 http://web2.westlaw.com/shared/text.wl?...rvice= Find&cfid=0&RS=WLW2.09&VR=2.0&n=1 these treated piecemeal. See however, State v. Heinz, 223 Iowa 1241, 275 N.W. 10, 114 A.I.R.959; State v. Mart, 237 Iowa 181, 20 N.W.2d 63. When read together with the other instructions, we find no error in instructions No. 3 and 4. [10] In refusing requested instructions No.3 and 4, no error was committed as the trial court gave the substance thereof in its instructions. (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *120, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) [11] V. Finally, appellant assigns as error the giving instructions No.8. The instruction said in part: 'there is no dispute that the defendant was the manager of the Katz Drug Store here in Des Moines, Iowa, that the refusal, if there was one, was made by the defendant's servant who was a waitress in his employ and and who came forward and talked to John Bibbs at the time.' The objection is that the instruction erroneously emphasized the testimony of the state's witnesses, erroneously accepted as correct their testimony, and gave undue prominence to the state's case. The language used by the trial court in the above instruction is unfortunate, but under the record herein we do not find it to be in error. While under a plea of not guilty all of the material allegations of the charge are denied, and the matter of refusal and by whom, are material and require proof, no prejudice to appellant exists by stating that there is no dispute regarding the same. This is because no where in the record is there any denial of the statement made by the state's witnesses that they were refused service by an employee of appellant, and for the further reason, that appellant submitted his case upon the sole theory that service was denied due to to disturbances created by the three Negroes. This theory was submitted to the jury by the court in its instructions and the jury found against appellant thereon. *121 (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *121, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) Finding no error sufficient to warrant a reversal, the judgement of the trail court should be and is affirmed. (Cite as: 241 Iowa 115, *121, 40 N.W.2d 41, **45) Affirmed. All Justices concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. (C) West 2000 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 7of 7 3/29/00 2:40 PM
Campus Culture
sidebar
