*1 circumstances, testi- but the any under free estab- Balboni witness expert mony made it which properties very lished fuse all such present dangerous use. Cf. ultimate manufacture from su- Corporation, Motors v. General
Kleve dissent at 572 and pra, 210 abundant evidence
There find the conditions jury could
which for its intended defective this
making fuse sold it to time defendant at the
use existed Company. Implement
Mateer any no error in Finding reversible
VI. raised, judg- affirm the we issues court. the trial
ment of
Affirmed. concur, except REYNOLD-
All Justices Ford, part. SON, Burlington, ap- takes no Hildreth J., who & pellant. Cahill,
Daniel E. County Atty., Asst. appellee.
HARRIS, Justice. Robert O’Dell (Robert), CHAMPION, In the Interest of Robert O’Dell youngster years of age, charged child, Appellant. juvenile dependent, being ne- glected delinquent chapter 232, under No. 2-56956. The Code. After hearing the trial court Supreme of Iowa. Court adjudged delinquent him 232.- Sept. 18, 1974. (a). This 2(13) provides: section “‘Delin- * * * quent child’ means child ** * has violated state law [w]ho
except any exempted offense which chapter from this by law.” Robert was accused of violating Code, provides: “If person shall without owner, take, consent of the or cause to taken, be any automobile vehicle, or motor and operate drive, or cause the same to operated driven, impris- shall be oned in the penitentiary not to exceed one *2 the though had been lost to county previously it jail imprisoned year, or by prior To hold otherwise months, not owner a theft. or be fined six not to exceed any ve- right the to would accord thief dollars.” hundred exceed to five yet not returned previously hicle stolen and exempted from is not Section 321.76 legislature to its the owner. We believe Code. The chapter 232. See § initial, proscribe, just intended to the succeeding wrongful taking but any under on had the the court was A trial to a The same under 321.76. conclusion § finding Robert in a charge which resulted statute was reached Edwards v. similar The evidence 321.76. had violated § State, 249, 174 46 Wis.2d when an present was showed Robert other teen- by two automobile was the car about drove age boys. The others sufficiently tak- facts show a Since the Robert, Burlington, and city of saw ing vehicle first for of the element reject- first them. He vited him to join supplied. sole offense was This was the they when invitation but relented ed the by issue the judgment raised Robert and of car Robert entering the After persisted. accordingly the trial court stolen and it had been first learned Affirmed. get He was dis- promptly asked out. dis- drove car a short
suaded and later tance. RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES UHLENHOPP, JJ., concur. states
The brief in behalf of Robert filed whether, appeal is the sole issue on circumstances, Robert violated 321.- REYNOLDSON, MOORE, these J., and C. wrong- Robert asserts element McCORMICK, JJ., dissent. MASON taking
ful shown. REYNOLDSON, (dissenting). Justice operating The a motor I. elements consent under 321.76 in- vehicle without § indicates, majority opinion As taking away wrongful from clude (1) dispute. facts this case not in In- operation driving any place (2) the Champion, a 15- volved is Robert O’Dell (3) the vehicle of motor (asportation) year-old charged pro- juvenile in a court (S) felonious intent and with child, delinquent ceeding being a Robert consent. chal- without owner’s Code, 232.2(13) (a), because he violat- sufficiency lenges the of the State’s show- ed 321.76. element, taking. ing only as the first was taken without the owner’s The car He argues was not He the element shown. children, by consent two one older automobile other not take the he did believes Champion. partici- than The latter neither required the sense for the element because pated nor that occurrence had already without taking had occurred time, later knowledge of it. a when At participation. Taking means “[t]he article, driving these the car two were with or laying act hold an around, they upon Champion and came implies a removing the same. It without persuaded Upon go him to dominion, ride. possession, con- transfer car learning the “stolen” he wanted (Revised Dictionary Black’s Law trol.” get remaining into” out but was “talked Ed.) Fourth ultimately about a vehicle and drove it sufficient think evidence We block. required the element. show Champi- juvenile judge found can occur and the owner an might call you on “then becomes what the vehicle achieved even dominion over incident,” accessory steal, to the and consequent- away property take and carry of an ly delinquent be- determined was a child other”).
cause he violated 321.76. apparent It is “taking” singular trespass act of vic- which the
I. The elements of
crime defined
*3
possession
tim’s
rights are
taking,
severed and the
1)
opera
321.76 include
a
2)
§
trespasser
possession, power
obtains
tion,
another, 4)
3)
motor
of
of a
vehicle
Am.Jur.2d, Larceny §11,
50
control. See
Additionally
without the owner’s consent.
4,
pp. 162-63;
necessary
Larceny
pp.
52A
is an element of criminal intent.
§
C.J.S.
422-424;
Drummer,
324,
Third New Interna-
State v.
N.
Webster’s
254 Iowa
117
Dictionary
tional
;
(1966 Ed.);
cf.
v.
505
State
(1962)
W.2d
see Morissette v. United
1167,
Kobylasz,
1161,
States,
242
246,
240,
Iowa
47 N.W.2d
342
96
U.S.
72 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
167,
748,
170
And it
obvious in the
Austin,
(1951).
is
(1952);
288
State v.
80 N.M.
jntent
judice
“taking”
case sub
had
car-
the
been
possession of it. State
607,
657,
(1957). Sim-
81 N.W.2d
“The
concedes
brief
The State’s
II.
us, he could
before
ilarly, under the facts
prove or
attempted to
has
at no time
State
In nei-
violating
321.76.
guilty
not be
Champion was
Appellant
imply that
did
actual event
ther the assumed nor
auto-
taking of the
original
volved
necessary
“taking,” a
any part in the
brief,
But the
Appellee’s
p. 2.
mobile.”
element in both offenses.
guilty
Champion was
implies
prosecution
*4
therefore
abetting and would
aiding
and
recurring “tak
theory of a
The esoteric
688.1,
principal.
as a
Section
punished
be
majority opinion is
espoused
ing”
The Code.
Ed
by
supported
other authorities.
249,
State,
174 N.W.2d
wards v.
46 Wis.2d
advises,
abettor is one who
An aider or
by majority, does in
on
(1970), relied
269
counsels, procures
encourages
as the ma
the same conclusion
deed reach
Am.Jur.2d,
21
a crime.
Crimi
to commit
rationale,
jority,
through
but not
that
119, p.
To aid or abet
nal Law
197.
solely
fact,
relies
any
Edwards
rationale.
to lend counte
to act or
means
assent
478,
Robbins,
N.
43
on
v.
Wis.2d
168
State
partici
approval
by
either
active
nance or
The latter decision
(1969).
W.2d 544
pation
encouraging
by in some manner.
analyze
or rea
attempt
157,
devoid
Kittelson, 164
v.
N.W.2d
it. State
the lan
simply states that
son. Robbins
McClelland,
;
1969)
161-162
v.
(Iowa
State
“does not
guage of the
statute
Wisconsin
457,
(Iowa 1968).
464
The re
162 N.W.2d
ap
that
driver at the time of
mean
quired
participation must
encouragement or
ac
prehension
person
has to be
who
prior
the commis
to or at the time of
occur
tually
rightful
from the
took the vehicle
Barnes,
sion of
v.
204
the offense. State
481,
at
168
owner.” 43 Wis.2d at
N.W.2d
827,
(Iowa 1972);
v.
N.W.2d
828
State
824,
Buttolph,
(Iowa
825
204 N.W.2d
857,
denied, 414
94
1972), cert.
U.S.
S.Ct.
ju-
said
from other
cases
We
often
163,
(1973).
operated the vehicle. in,
Champion abetted or had aided or of, taking. having par
knowledge Not
ticipated encouraged in or the other two
boys prior taking, to or the time of the at guilty 321.76 violation. Barnes, 828; at supra,
State v. 204 N.W.2d Buttolph, supra, 204
State v.
825; Kittelson, supra; see v. State State Brown, supra; Myers,
v. v. 158 N. State Fonza, (Iowa 1968);
W.2d State Smith,
supra; supra. State v.
Having conceded was inno- respect taking,
cent with State
cannot assert he aided or the other abetted
boys in committing offense.
Champion did not *5 violate §
therefore should not been de- found
linquent proceeding 232.2(13) (a) §a
grounded solely I on that offense. would
reverse.
MOORE, J.,C. and MASON and Mc-
CORMICK, JJ., join this dissent. ETH
COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ICS AND IOWA CONDUCT OF Hedo M. Zacherle and H. Lee Gaudi- ASSOCIATION, Complain STATE BAR neer, Jr., Moines, complainant. Des ant, Bromwell, pro Edward se. James BROMWELL, Respondent. James Edward
No. 57521. REYNOLDSON, Justice.
Supreme Court of Iowa. Sept. The Committee Ethics on Professional Bar Conduct of Iowa State Asso- lodged complaint against respondent
ciation Bromwell, asserting his Edward James willful failure file federal and state come tax professional returns violated