*1 Kaldenberg, Re they recognize “these N.W.2d In Estate of say that Appellees 388, 393, in Re estate 256 Iowa In all other real N.W.2d along farms with Zach, N. during the Estate 257 Iowa have value Iowa increased period of time and W.2d 484. corresponding same with nothing to do
that should have Objector’s complaints pur- XII. were equities under these issues.” carefully vigor. The case sued correctly considered trial court and ordinary This an is not sale decided. probate. a sale under the wills and It is pursuant provisions. their The wills The case spеak Newby. from the death of Mrs. Affirmed. v, Keller, 201, Bjorns Lorieux 5 Iowa Fish,
tad All concur. Justices 1. Williams, Floerchinger Iowa
In quotation appears: this
148N.W.2d speaks
“It is fundamental law that will testator, rights
from the death of parties accrue at time.” rights The of Harold and Kenneth Appellee, STATE Newby Mrs. died. accrued when appraised very farms were soon thereafter.
If property has increased value ELLISTON, Appellant. D. Marvin good is their fortune. No. 52809. Iowa. Supreme Objector says executors are
X. their du subject to removal for breach of June that ef many ties and cites authorities proposition. fect. We need not discuss apply attempting
It law. objector
law to the case before us the disap
hypercritical, obviously grounded
pointment. record, have
We examined the Newby
exhibits and the files in both any nothing
estates. We find to indicate
grounds for removal.
XI. The trial court found that Harold Newby Newby Edward and Kenneth
J. per pay should at the of 5 interest rate per unpaid
cent annum on balance of
their contract from 1965 to January completed
date that the the rea- sale is purchasers pos-
son that the are vendees
session.
This is in accord with the law.
Swanson Baldwin, *2 Eugene
Edmund Fleming, Brian M. Olmstead, Kutmus, and William L. Des Moines, appellant. Turner, Atty. Gen.,
Richard C. William Claerhout, Atty. Gen., Ray A. Asst. A. morning Sunday, Moines, ap- In the hours early Fenton, Atty., Des County July po- number 1967 a of Des Moines pellee. dispatched lice officers were to the area of MOORE, quell a 10th and 11th on Center Street to Justice. They there loud and riotous disturbance. was filed an information July On *3 people milling found 75 to 100 about the charging Municipal Court in Des Moines fight. engaged area and six in a One were Elliston, defendant, with unlaw- Marvin D. lacerations. fighters of the suffered severe section Code assembly in violation of ful plea guilty not Subsequent of aggressive. to unruly 743.1. The was and crowd to trial July set 1967. On phrases trial was profanity and such Shouts of and sen- guilty found power” the he was “get whitey”, court “black and “let’s pay days jail or tenced to serve five repeated. riot” made and were Various appealed. He has fine. and rocks were missiles such as bottles $50 Despite the ef- hurled all directions. asserts the trial Defendant-appellant many police disperse officers forts of to for dis- denying erred in his motion disturbance, stop the and the it con- crowd insufficient evi- grounds missal on the of tinued an hour. for over Police officers demurrer, dence, refusing overruling his rough subjected were to much abuse and made refusing his demand and continuance treatment. July jury on 19 for a trial. ap- Worthington Officer testified he saw as- provides: “Unlawful Section 743.1 Elliston, Mar- pellant Larry Fountain and persons in a sembly. three or more When “they vin in the crowd and were Williams to- or tumultuous manner assemble violent noise, hanging making around act, or, to- do an unlawful when gether to disperse not told do so. when to act, law- gether, attempt to do an whether the They standing in the middle were violent, unlawful, unlawful, or in an ful or minutes street A few blocking traffic”. manner, the disturbance of tumultuous observed Williams Worthington later others, they are an unlawful as- guilty of pop struck officer throw bottle which the sembly, imprisoned and shall Rounds on the shoulder. thirty days, jail more than county hundred exceeding one dol- be fined After was the crowd on Center Street lars.” finally dispersed within the disturbande University minutes moved to 14th and In considering
I. a claim of in Ave., a distance of about six blocks. sufficient evidence we view the evidence in found police they When arrived there light most favorable to the It is State. many persons, including Ellis- the same ours, function, not de the fact-finder’s ton, The officers Fountain Williams. disputed questions of fact to draw cide Sunday had observed one thrown some The permissible inferences therefrom. street. morning papers the middle of the findings binding upon us court’s Signs nearby car were also from a wash they are satisfied are without unless we Shouting hollering contin- street. support in the evidence or substantial again ued. Missiles thrown. One were clearly against weight thereof. State by thrown cars struck squad N.W.2d Wesson, 260 Iowa estimated at 30 bricks. crowd was N. 1147, 259 Iowa 192; Steger, State persons. Greer, 259 Iowa State W.2d Community Action Members Stodola, 257 144 N.W.2d joined police in an effort Council 920, 921. N.W.2d Iowa others, Elliston, like disperse the crowd. by police move on factual was told officers to discloses little The record first the scene. He with at leave Fountain evidence. dispute appellant offered no ain vio- persons three than came ble with more feet and then away few moved an do manner to wagon. tumultuous paddy (sic) lent of position near back to a chapter 743.1 in violation of El- unlawful act yet command to Subsequent another their of Iowa.” disperse and the 1966 Code liston and Fountain to Williams, so, they, along refusal with to do an in rule is that The established charged unlawful were arrested attorney’s county information dictment or assembly. given name if it uses the sufficient .is Elliston, Fountain, Appellant Williams number by statute and the offense together. Anthony were tried Colbert Craig, State v. the Code. statute in re- the trial the court At the conclusion of “Fountain and stated: viewed evidence Lainson, Meeks v. Elliston, on. they were told to move *4 448; 446, Johnson, v. State a walk chance to gave The officer them 522, This 1199, 1197, 523. 237 N.W. Iowa ad- away thеy take place. Did from Munic- applicable rule to informations is No, vantage they were there to aid of it? Nielsen, Iowa ipal Breeden v. Court. and their friends and continue comfort 664; 358, 363, 661, v. State 127 N.W.2d * * * con- as the law is As far riot. Bostwick, 584, 588, 57 N.W.2d question the has State cerned there no 217, section 773.34. 219. also Code See proved beyond their reasonable case defen- guilt of all four doubt to the in the filed Here the information dants.” given the name Municipal Court used the of number and set out the Code offense Ellis- only are herе concerned with We date of It also stated the the statute. appeal. the record ton’s Our of review phraseology and used some of offense support the trial discloses substantial fur desired If Elliston section 743.1. of findings do court’s and conclusions. We of a bill sought he should have ther details agree appellant’s claim of insuffi- 773.6. State particulars under section cient evidence. Lockhart, Bostwick, supra; State appellant’s Immediately before trial II. 638, 589, 640, 590. Iowa 39 N.W.2d record he dictated into the counsel what as used charge such The short form of He therein referred to as a demurrer. assaults here has withstood constitutional constitutionality of Code section raised the 773.6) (section provision in view of sufficiency of the information. 743.1 par bill of which entitles an to a accused érred in Appellant asserts 536, Olson, 249 Iowa ticulars. State v. because, overruling (1) demurrer his 223; Ketu 550, 214, State 86 N.W.2d face, its information was insufficient on 600, rokis, 491, 497, 276 N.W. re- the notice (2) the violated information citations. 603 and quirements process (3) section of due prob- 743.1 is Procedural unconstitutional. the information was agree cannot We lems are not shall consider raised and we the no- or violated insufficient on its face regard appellant’s contentions without process. requirements tice of due thereto. length at Appellant argues against filed Elliston information III. 743.1. unconstitutionality section of defendant, Ellis- stated: “The Marvin D. in broad as He the statute so asserts As- ton, accused of the crime of Unlawful Viol, con scope prohibition of clude within the sembly Code Chap. 743.1 of of speech rights of free stitutionally protected Iowa, of For that the defendant on 1966. proc due assembly, that it violates the day 1967, City Des the 2nd at of July, notice, sub adequate requirements Polk, ess of of Moines, County arbitrary indiscrimi- jects citizens to wilfully unlawfully did —Assem- Connally Const. v. General ess of law. the whims based on application nate 126, L. Co., 385, 391, 40 S.Ct. 269 U.S. law enforcement offi- caprice of individual 322; Jersey, of New Ed. Lanzetta v. State es- trier fact to it licenses cers 83 L.Ed. 59 S.Ct. do 306 U.S. guilt. We standard of his own tablish of New People of Stаte any of Winters subject the statute not read York, 68 S.Ct. 333 U.S. infractions. constitutional these Pennsyl- v. State 92 L.Ed. Giaccio meaning of challenges the Appellant vania, S.Ct. 382 U.S. phrase of section nearly every word Bacon, In re 15 L.Ed.2d sit- varying hypothetical posing while 743.1 34, Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d pos- could people wherein innocent uations widely used and contains Section 743.1 stat- sibly subjected be arrest under the defini Dictionary understood words. well examples three or ute. Included are statute out. The tions need not be set street, skating children in the three more its reach clearly precisely delineates corner, violently people arguing on street It is understanding. words common at people evincing passionate disagreement legis evincing a precise regulatory statute political public excitement at- rally, or specific con judgment lative that certain upon parade. tendant situations Such clear prohibited. meaning duct Its purport- highlight cited doubt no intelligence including those men stifling ed the statute in overbreadth of *5 duty conclu it enforce it. Our whose is to speech assembly. are not free and We said in supported by what is sion is well persuaded groups such are included with- 229, Carolina, 372 v. South U.S. Edwards statutory in prohibition the unless assem- 702, 697, 236, 680, 683, 83 9 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. togeth- bled do an act unlawful or when Louisiana, 703, U.S. v. of 379 Cox State attempt er unlawful, to do an act in an vi- 487, 559, 476, 479, 562, 13 L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. olent or tumultuous manner. 34, Bacon, 491, supra, Cal.App.2d In re 240 Asso., -In American Communications 335, 332, Cal.Rptr. 49 and Cameron Douds, 382, 412, CIO v. 339 U.S. 70 S.Ct. 611, 1335, L. Johnson, 88 S.Ct. 390 U.S. 674, 691, 925, 951, Supreme 94 L.Ed. April 22, filed 1968. Ed.2d 182 Court, when faced with similar conten- tions, “The argument vague- said: аs to writ opinions have been of Scores ness stresses breadth of terms such particular question ten on the of whether ‘affiliated,’ ‘supports’ ‘illegal and uncon- or constitutionally upon the infringes statute stitutional methods.’ There is little doubt assem speech and protected of free rights imagination conjure hypothetical that can Amendment the First bly guaranteed under in which meaning cases these terms of These Constitution. to the United States question. applicable in nice will be The Mr. not unlimited. rights are Justice standard, howеver, wholly not one of most strin “The long ago Holmes said: academic definition of abstract consistent not speech free gent protection of is, rather, practical It criterion terms. shouting fire in falsely protect a man in of fair notice to those to whom the statute causing panic.” Schenck theater and particular The is directed. is all context 52, 47, 39 S.Ct. States, 249 U.S. United important.” 470, 247, 249, 63 L.Ed. considering the constitutional In the Fourteenth Amendment Under pick prohibiting ity a Louisiana statute Constitution, of a statute to the States United Mr. Gold house eting near requires doing or which either forbids Justice in writing majority Cox berg, that men vague of terms so of an act in 559, Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. State of necessarily guess intelligence must common 498, 487, 476, 485, 13 L.Ed.2d 85 S.Ct. applica at meaning differ as to its its in here or said have proc- “Nothing said: we due tion the first essential of violates Legislative concepts.’ Florida L. Gibson v. 85 S.Ct. 379 U.S. No. Comm., 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. as sanction interpreted be Ed.2d is to 9 L.Ed.2d 935.” or demon any form ing riotous conduct conduct strations, peaceful their however con- Applying principles must these we motives, con which their commendable or clude section 743.1 is unconstitutional or statutes properly drawn flict infringing peaceful speech on free and or law promote designed to dinances assembly. vi- against It rightfully protects disor against community der, protect appellant part olence of was a legitimate traffic, safeguard der, regulate ap- early July 2, find hours of 1967. We public property, private and interests pellant’s constitutionality of attacks on the justice of administration protect Amend- section 743.1 First untenable. functions. govermental other essential assembly rights ment speech of free so broad riotous as to sanction sys- only exercised in a “Liberty can unlawful conduct. safeguards order. We tem law which holdings of repeated reaffirm the provisions Statutes ordinances with command constitutional our subjected similar to section 743.1 have been assembly and fun- is basic speech ap free to attacks as made here been and have peaceful They social encompasses damental and proved many jurisdictions. important preservation protest, so strongly support holding our the statute democratic so- treasured freedoms constitutional. authorities addition to repeated deci- ciety. reaffirm the cited, We also Arkan already see Cole v. place sas, sions of this Court that there is no L.Ed. U.S. S.Ct. society dedi- Ala.App. for violence in a democratic State, Abernathy v. liberty law, cated under Neb. State, 155 So.2d Bloor v. right peaceful protest meаn does not City Lewiston N.W. *6 everyone 805; that to re opinions 322, or beliefs Frary, with 91 Idaho 420 P.2d any express may Cal.Rptr. any Bacon, at and at Cal.App.2d 34, do so time 240 49 325, place. place 322; State, N. proper There is a time and 258 Koss v. 217 Wis. 21, Bulot, for even the 142 So. peaceful protest most and 175 La. W. 441, 224 plain duty Galvin, responsibility part and N.H. on State v. 107 obey regu- all citizens to all laws and A.2d valid 574. require- plain
lations. There equally is an ment for and drawn regulations laws to be provides: Code section IV. 780.3 give warning so as as to to citizens fair it shall, demands defendant if he “The illegal; what is for conduct regulation of three plea, to upon entering his entitled be that and as- speech involves freedom of De trial.” days prepare in which to to sembly scope as not to be in so broad on bond fendant was released on his own freedoms, stifle First Amendment not July arraigned pleaded and 3 ‘need NAACP breathing space to survive.’ set for July 10. trial was guilty'on His 328, Button, S.Ct. 83 U.S. July on trial July Immediately before appropriate 9 L.Ed.2d on appellant moved for a continuance public offi- limitations on discretion of employed his ground counsel had been inter- speech assembly cials where are re was only day before. The motion all conduct; twined and for regulated occasion during trial each newed and on applied such laws regulations error. Appellant as assigns denied. all equal with an hand. We believe Lowder, Iowa or- In State requirements in an these met can be this from quote 129 N.W.2d re- we liberty. society dered We dedicated to Maupin, State v. ‘[fjreedom affirm our conviction that * * * said so often 828, 830: have N.W. “We indivisible government viable are
5QQ sup- Municipal This same Moines Court cited Des need not be that authorities applica- Berg, rule substance, 9 was before us State v. an thereof, port peculiarly N.W.2d 780-781. addressed continuance tion for court, There, analyzing many after authorities trial of the to the sound discretion jurisdictions, say: in- from other “In the we not be ruling thereon will and that its municipal clearly case at bar the court rule does it unless appeal on terfered with abridge, mоdify not the constitu- limit, his abused court has appear that the trial by jury. right tional of an accused to trial resulted has discretion, injustice and an The rule right Such remains inviolate. therefrom.” by procedure merely provides orderly an more than been set for trial had Here the ac- right may which the be exercised if police offi- night working week, least at in Berg cused elects.” held so We also testify and other de- present cers were rule 9 is not unreasonable. incident were the same involving fendants Appellant Jennings, tо State refers No motion present ready for trial. wherein we were appel- had been made for continuance its bear- again with rule confronted employ- day his . lant’s counsel on recog- jury. ing upon right We ment. held had not Jennings nized rule 9 but approval on Although placing our advised jury as she was not waived a summary brusque, rather the trial court’s statute charge against her was under a denying angry manner of somewhat municipal until rather than ordinance we do motion for continuance counsel’s Jennings case time. facts judicial discretion find the court abused his it case distinguish from the at bar. injustice appellant resulted. or that an We find no reversible error. Appellant Indeed we ably defended. put imagine added de- hard what Affirmed. if more
fense could been asserted have time had been allotted. GARFIELD, LARSON, J., C. STUART, JJ., SNELL and concur. in the section
V. Code 602.28 Municipal chapter provides that “shall, except MASON,
non-indictable misdemeanors RAWLINGS, BECKER provided chapter, be LeGRAND, otherwise JJ., dissent. ac in the manner criminal triable same *7 justice peace in courts
tions of the оr other RAWLINGS, (dissenting). Justice having jurisdiction 602.- thereof.” Section may respectfully I dissent. by jury 39 states: “Demand for trial court, provided by be as made rule of opinion the In majority Division IV made, by if cause be not so the shall tried placing “Although is this statement: not the court.” rather approval our the on trial court’s angry Municipal brusque, summary and Rule 9 of the Des Moines somewhat for denying in motion provides: all manner of counsel’s Court “In criminal cases the court continuance we do not which the to trial find defendant is entitled * * * in- that an by judicial the demand abused his discretion or jury on demand hardly justice appellant day This days prior the to resulted.” must be made three to portrays the true situation. on the cause is set for trial.” by rec- the reason, delayed request jury for a For not disclosed Appellant some ord, by defen- counsel retained trial. He asserts rule was not day trial until the scheduled before time erred dant until hours and the court is unreasonable request. agree. for trial. denying his We do not time, At this Your attorney en- “MR. KUTMUS: defendant his
When Honor, the counsel for thе Mr. happened, defendant, is what tered the this courtroom Elliston, jury us. moves and demands for a by as disclosed the record before by him the guaranteed to Sixth “MR. KUTMUS: Counsel] [Defense of the States Constitu- Amendment United Elliston, Marvin the defendant Comes now the argue tion. that defendant’s We would attorney Louis Kut- through William his jury process due has this been violated if mus, separate trial requests for a granted. defen- demand not Since the case, let the record show that four this charged dant notice would have be to being together, tried wherе- defendants are provide that the rules this Court by defendants, the name in two one of the requested three-day filed notice to be Colbert, Anthony Marvin Williams defendant, orally the Court the to that. these two are—strike individuals days three-day begins that notice three being These two individuals’ cases are tried rule, prior date of trial. Such Elliston, together Mr. with the defendant by Munic- promulgated which has been opinion these cases and it’s counsel’s ipal Judges, public record. not a Court segregated be in that facts should primarily It’s a rеcord that’s available circumstances. do arise out of same County, attorneys and around Polk defendant, Honor, time, At this Your charge in view that I believe to attorney, through Wil- Elliston, Marvin his knowledge a special defendant with kind of Kutmus, moves for liam for a continuance particular the rules of this yesterday, the reason that I was retained process. would due be violation of matter. The July concerning this that, Honor, the defendant view of Your case was for scheduled and is scheduled jury moves trial. for July, day later, trial on the 19th of one that, Honor, in view of Your I believe “THE be COURT: Your will motion attorney right that an has bear out cases overruled. case, prepare in view his Elliston, defendant, time, Mr. At counsel “MR. Your KUTMUS: enough Honor, requests that he has had not time to feels the defendant to withdraw reason, For Your plea this case. In- prepare guilty and of not demur to Honor, attorney, the defendant’s William formation. Kutmus, case. to continue his moves they thought “THE I cut out COURT: Motion will over- “THE COURT: demurrers. ruled. three “MR. KUTMUS: There [sic] Polk BERGESON: “MR. [Assistant Honor, pleas guilty, Your Honоr, the' County Attorney] Your guilty, demur. like would the record
purposes of any way not in offer that it does you may de- right, state “THE All COURT: motion and counsel’s defense resistance to mur. 234.1 to the Court Section point out *8 Honor, for “MR. clar- KUTMUS: Your may be tried case that one it states where ity record, the demurring the to I am alone. and convicted prior entering plea of information to law the know what pro- I
“THE criminal guilty. COURT: I believe the rules of You are overruled. is, motions proce- and all the provide cedure for that method of trial ? ready for for the gentlemen begin the counsel dure. To with request the ask and that defense would Honor, still have I “MR. KUTMUS: prepare him time grant sufficient to made, may. Iif record to be brief, brief, his de- a written to sustain mur right. “THE All [sic]. COURT:
5H time, At Your BERGESON: this is over- “MR. Your motion “THE COURT: Honor, Moran I would like to call Lt. to up yesterday. matter had that ruled. We swear to these Informations. Honor, at Then, Your “MR. KUTMUS: right, sign “THE All these COURT: or Chapter that 742.1 argue this time I will Informations. is uncon- Iowa Code 743.1 under the 1966 the statute on its that words, there are no divide [sic] stitutional for the it’s void for face is unconstitutional following reasons: vagueness. lines, no other That formations.) “(Lt. Moran « [*] [*] [*] signed and swore In- in said or set forth gentlemen, standards “THE COURT: if I established Now on notice put the defendant you ready 743.1 to were sure were for we any in violation of whether or not he’s would ahead. But what I’m go here’s Chapter 743.1 particular act. That’s you’re ready I if going to do. don’t know [sic] is unconstitutional going of the Iowa Code or not. We are to take a for recess contemplate all that said act does not at up your about ten minutes. Make mind you defendant do ready the intention whether for trial not dur- are or require- Hence, wrongful ing since act. the next ten minutes. in the stat- specified ment intent is not “(A taken.) ten minutes recess was being
ute we would assail statute intent. of such unconstitutional want “THE may COURT: State first call its it that That 743.1 is unconstitutional witness. of the Unit- abridges first Amendment “MR. KUTMUS: Your Honor— as Article ed well States Constitution as Section 20 of the Constitution which “THE COURT: right, All it? what assembly assembly, for lawful allows the de- At time “MR. KUTMUS: this act persons one, and that said more than Elliston, his attor- through Marvin fendant abrogates right. abridges Kutmus, requests the Court ney William between
“(Off hours, applica- time, record discussion make grant him Court.) counsel and the question writ of certiorari to tion for the demur your dection on legality of [sic] un- question “That the said statute [sic], it the Fifth constitutional in that violates record show “THE Let the COURT: Amendment of United Constitu- States areWe the motion is overruled. tion well as the 14th Amendment in going to trial right now. provide said for notice to statute does incorporated him of the variance Honor, at “MR. BER&SON: Your in the Information. In cоnnection Attorney County now the this time comes broad, protect is too statute these a motion that each of makes myself, Honor, Your I to stress want Infor- amend the four Information —to yesterday that this fact that I was notified ‘at- deleating words mations [sic] trial, I pending today case tempt riot’ to incite a to ‘to the disturbance my request for mo- again reiterate of others.’ tion for continuance. to make “THE COURT: Your want “THE You haven’t shown COURT: still any tak- this amendment before evidence is yet anything you where are entitled tо me en ? your one as far as motion is concerned. “MR. Yes. BERGESON: brought anything yet. You haven’t out Gentlemen, you ready for trial? Let’s may so. “THE COURT: You do *9 get to trial this matter. bn that, In view of Your “MR. KUTMUS:
s< [*] i}C n Honor, defendant again requests a motion 512 1642, 751; 6 L.Ed.2d prepare himself for re Murchison, In for continuance 349 133, 136, 623, made U.S. 625, has been 75
amendment that
S.Ct.
99 L.Ed.
942;
v.
Powell
Alabama,
State of
287
State.
U.S.
45, 70-71,
55, 64-65,
53 S.Ct.
158,
77 L.Ed.
Motion overruled.
“THE COURT:
527;
84 A.L.R.
McDonald v. Moore (5
Cir.),
106, 109-110;
353 F.2d
State v.
time,
this
Your
At
“MR. KUTMUS:
Gionfriddo,
90,
154
851,
Conn.
221 A.2d
Elliston
Mr. Marvin
Honor, the defendant
855;
v. Gurney,
State
71,
249 La.
185 So.
to the Information
respectfully demurs
19, 21-22;
2d
Borst,
State v.
278 Minn.
Information
insuf-
аmended in that said
388, 154
888, 889-895;
16A
broad,
face, vague and
ficient
too
on its
C.J.S.
591,
Constitutional
659;
page
Law
16
§
against
crime
the defen-
does
reveal
Am.Jur.2d,
Law,
Constitutional
550,
section
dant,
face
that the Information on its
page
575,
980;
946 and
page
Annos. 17 A.
charge
is a defense
we would
1244;
L.R.3rd 1181,
and Annos. 94 A.L.R.
urge
demur
here-
the same
was
[sic]
2d 826. See also American Bar Associa
urged prior
tofore
to the amendment.
tion, Canons of
15,
10 and
Ethics
Judicial
overruled.
Motion
“THE COURT:
Handbook
Judges, American Judi
“
[*]
[*]
[*]
cature
Society, 1961,
page 66.
In
ques-
addition there exists a serious
I
Honor, may
Your
“MR. KUTMUS:
ion as whether
legally
valid or
suffi-
prior
at
you stated
—I believe
the—
cient information was on file until after
ten minutes
grant us
you
recess
defendant and
attorney
his
into
walked
not we were
whether or
decide
which
regard
courtroom.
In this
see sections
that,
In view of
case.
try this
ready to
602.28, 762.2, 762.15, 773.43-773.47, Code,
Honor—
Your
1966,
Ford,
655,
State v.
222 Iowa
269
ten
minutes
Your
“THE COURT:
N.W. 926.
up.
fix
By
authority
what
did
trial
Honor, and
Yes Your
KUTMUS:
“MR.
signed
been
time until an information had
Marvin Ellis-
William—or
the defendant
statutory
complied
with the
man-
Kutmus,
attorney William
through his
ton,
unsigned,
Surely
date?
an
unvеrified in-
re-
ten minute
that this
states
respectfully
qualify
an
strument does
informa-
prepare for
time to
not sufficient
cess
public
tion
of a
charging commission
of-
case.
this
signed
my
fense
and verified.
In
until
opinion defendant was
to contin-
entitled
tes-
right, let’s take
All
“THE COURT:
reason, if
other.
uance for this
for no
See
timony.”
support
French,
hereof
240
State
opinion
foregoing,
my humble
In
1, 25,
gig requirements. meet constitutional cific to here mean defendant
But does not fairly.
dealt and remand. would reverse
I LeGRAND, BECKER,
MASON, in this dissent.
JJ., join NAXERA, Appellee,
Charles WATHAN, Appellant.
Jim L.
No. 52769.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
June