*1 persuaded tion if its evidence jury.
If a constitutionally mistrial were una- this,
vailable in such as situations policy only implemented could
State’s
by conducting a second trial after ver- appeal,
dict and reversal on thus wasting
time, energy, money for all con- Here judge’s
cerned. the trial action
was a designed rational determination
implement legitimate policy, state suggestion implementation
no that the policy in this manner could be ma-
nipulated prejudice so the defend-
ant.”
Taking instantly all involved circum-
stances hold, into account we now
court’s original termination of the action proper a matter of manifest neces-
sity and warranted the ends of
justice.
Resultantly the Larry trial of defendant
D. Gowins on the charged violation of
Code 247A.6 did not contravene his Fifth rights against
Amendment jeopardy. double
Affirmed. Iowa, Appellant,
STATE of
Ralph PRYBIL, Appellee.
No. 55535.
Supreme Court Iowa.
Oct.
3Q9 Gen., Atty. Turner, Bennett convention hotel from contractors Richard C. Gen., Cullison, Atty. county purchases Jr., Asst. Robert connection with Gen., Bartels, ap- equipment, material, en- Special Atty. and services. He Asst. pellant. plea, jury guilty tered a waived pursuant to Code was tried Honohan, Jay City, appel- H. Iowa *3 by the court. lee. relating The introduced evidence State transactions, separate to five three with Company, M. one with the Herman Brown McCORMICK, Justice. Lumber, Supply Bridge Wheeler and Com- pany, Pelling L. and one with the L. Com- appeals The judgment trial court’s State Expense pany. vouchers submitted Prybil, Ralph acquitting a mem- defendant com- salesmen for Brown and Wheeler County super- ber of board of the Johnson panies companies paid for indicated the visors, receiving gratuities from con- purchases discussed lunches at were county tractors in connection business supervisors. board of On oc- in violation Code transactions 741.1. § casion, days compa- two after the Wheeler but reverse do not remand de- since ny county shed, pole sold the its salesman fendant been in jeopardy. sup- entertained the at a Des Moines board The Code. per club. A month later he sold them provides: Code 741.1 county yard. enclosure fence for the proportionate State contended defendant’s “It any shall for agent, unlawful share of these meals unlawful constituted representative, employee, or officer or gifts to him under 741.1. any agent private corporation, aof or a public officer, acting in prin- behalf of a Company Pelling Records showed cipal any transaction, business to re- expenses of Decem- $21.53 ceive, use, directly for his own or indi- 11, 1969, ber hotel for convention rectly, any gift, commission, discount, defendant and and his wife on De- $20.95 bonus, with, gratuity or connected relat- 22, 1969, cember a gift for to de- books to, growing or out of such business fendant. In a series of be- transaction; and it shall be un- likewise 11, 1969, September January tween and any person, lawful for whether acting company $10,000 did more than his own behalf or in any copart- behalf of repair worth of road equipment and nership, association, corporation, or county. offer, promise, or give directly or indi- carry Trial court held the failed rectly any gift, such commission, dis- proof acquitted its burden of defend- count, bonus, or gratuity. interpreted ant. The court also provisions this section shall not differently than the State believed apply construed to officials or em- alleges should. The court erred ployees of the state of Iowa nor to legis- limiting in (1) “gift[s], the terms commis- legislative lators or employees.” sion, discount, gratuity” bonus or to kick- backs, requiring proof such (2) kickbacks The offense is an misdemeanor, indictable were made as inducement for punishable aby fine of not less than $25 particular partic- or for a sale reward nor $500, more that by county or jail im- purchase, finding ular (3) the State’s prisonment more year, than one or evidence insufficient to establish defend- by both fine and imprisonment. § guilt. ant’s 741.2,The Code. Defendant was alleged to have violated previously I. We have not inter meals, by receiving books, preted principles 741.1. Familiar of stat-
3H betray employer,” of a applicable. The bribe N. utory are one’s construction in or- Y.S. legislative intent at 777. ascertain goal" tois der, give it effect. Words possible, if a statute Under similar ours Con meaning unless given ordinary their are Aldridge, necticut court in State v. legislature or differently defined Conn.Sup. 257, 268, (Su 202 A.2d peculiar appropriate possessed of a per.Ct.1964), said, “It intention of pertinent statutes meaning,in law. Other prohibit person this statute who has given is to be Effect must be considered. the authority to make contracts transact not to are Its terms to the entire statute. business on behalf of a guise of construc- changed under corporation accepting any payment, Fulton, Maguire tion. compensation commission search- and citations. person kind from the he with whom *4 intent, the we consider ing legislative the makes contract or transacts business.” accomplished as well objects sought to be statements, For similar see State v. Brew place a reason- language and as the used er, 533, N.C. 129 (1963); 258 S.E.2d 262 will the statute which able construction on Landecker, 195, State v. 100 126 A. Shaeffer, N.J.L. purpose. its best effect Crow v. 716, (1924), 408 affirmed 103 137 A. N.J.L. 45, 1972). 47 919; Note, Note, 848; 46 108 U.Pa.L.Rev. was enacted in 1907 as Code 741.1 § annot., 1 599; A.L.R.3d 1350 Minn.L.Rev. 183, Acts It was entitled 32 ch. 1. G.A. § seq. et prohibit corrupt “AN ACT to the influenc- ing agents, representatives, employees, of application public to officers In its § private public corporation, officers of a or and 201(f) 18 741.1 resembles U.S.C. §§ acting principal officers in behalf of in hierarchy the of (g), lesser offenses any provide and business transaction in 18 corruption defined U. federal officer penalty therefor.” pun- 201(f) prescribes S.C. 201. Section who, than as The as ishment for one “otherwise reaches well statute thus public provided proper discharge relationship for the employees. In its to law indirectly directly private employees duty, of or it is brib a commercial official offers, anything of ery gives, promises val- public employees statute. As to it fits or * * * for or any public ue public the scheme to official prohibiting of statutes 739.1, performed to corruption. or any officer of official act See because §§ 739.10, 739.11, public official performed such purpose The The statutes Code. of * * punisha- like makes frequently 201(g) been Section 741.1 has discussed. by the prohibited New bribery receiving York of benefit commercial ble the purpose public scope 439 of Penal of and of (now Law official. repealed replaced by and defined: prohibitions been and 180.- these §§ 05 present Law, of its McKinney’s Penal to Consol.Laws, related awarding gifts of thus People Davis, “The 40). c. an evil acts employee’s 33 is N.Y.Crim. 160 official N.Y.S. (1915), 769 itself, does though the the donor court held the even purpose of 439 was the em- prohibit influence agents corruptly to intend to considering from their tends, personal acts, it own because ployee’s official by making welfare contracts pref- otherwise, bring about subtly favorable to themselves rather or than their offi- employers. Government The court erential treatment said “secret com consciously or missions are to uncon- employees, cials or condemned they because prompt give gifts dis- sciously, betray master, servant to his for those who and do not. thus who prejudice those tinguished master’s the interests * * * procuring others,” of the iniquity pay consideration of received from officials, or it also, public intentional at 160 bonus N.Y.S. “[a] commission, unintentional, fatally destructive is so secretly given nothing is short employer causing his good designed a statute individual * government that ** from, buy public principal of use temptation for a remove with, of, deal preferment to give ficial to one member services another, person making payment.” Ballen by prohibit over 1969). any Dictionary (Third tine’s Law Ed. gifts because offi all ‘for or act,’ Limiting the proper bounties enumerated cial reasonable and 741.1 to integrity, kickbacks would have effect insuring fairness means reading “gratuity” “gift,” the terms impartiality of the administration Also, Irwin, by pro “bonus” out of the statute. States v. law.” United denied, hibiting only payments Cir.1965), reward (2 F.2d cert. influence, majority the Dukehart-Hughes 16 L.Ed.2d statutory lan contradicts the
guage
broadly enjoins
benefits “con
plain language
believe the
with,
to,
growing
relating
§ nected
out”
739.1,
741.1 and its
to Code
§§
business transaction. The statute
739.11, prohibiting
other kinds
require proof
does not
the transaction
corruption,
official
leg
demonstrate
corrupt, only
the transaction
scope,
islature
intended
to have the same
payment.
is,
reason for the
If it
purpose, and effect as
201(f)
18 U.S.C.
is corrupt
necessarily
§§
but not
*5
and (g).
necessary
“It is
not
for the
gift
Government
show that the
caused
upon
Trial court relied
Dukehart-Hughes
prompted
inor
any way affected the
States,
Equipment
Tractor &
Co. United
v.
happening
any
of the official act or had
613,
(1965),
giv-
341 F.2d
public policy manifested 741.1. The disagree court decided We also with trial the statute is aimed at kick- II.
backs, court’s requires does conclusion that the necessarily not bar statute entertain- may the gifts single State to out of what agents potential of or one of cus- a tomers, series of business as paid refers to bounties transactions con in connec- single tion particular transaction, payment. with a nected to a unlawful Un and uses the specified, less “gift, commission, the use of the enumeration dis- sin count, bonus, gular gratuity” plural. a statute includes 4.- an the as elaboration types of 1(3), The of Code. The statute thus bars kickbacks. A argues dissent “any the statute is not influence as to limited to business kickbacks gratuities bars “any transactions” as multiple related to well as to business as well as single “any,” business transaction.” The is word which transactions. We find the dissent used seven employed accords with times our view of the is enlarge statute. rather than limit terms modi “all,”
fied. It means “every” The statute does not use the Steenhoek, word “one.” See v. State 182 N.W. “kickback,” and nothing 377, there is in its lan dismissed, 2d appeal guage, context, purpose justify 878, 159; sub 404 30 L.Ed.2d stituting that word for the words that are Iowa City Illinois &Gas Elec. Co. of v. used. In its normal meaning, a Bettendorf, kickback is 363-364, 241 Iowa “payment money or property an (1950). reasoning, appeals Such Under trial court’s bas the State are useless. sufficiency While the matter of Dukehart-Hughes, would become or insuffi upon it ed ciency prove question is a of law proportionately difficult more this court will review the with refuse to record guilt the number where it will benefit no one.” gift If a followed the donor increased. another, Wardenburg, 261 purchase preceded Iowa 158 N. one W.2d charged by view State would be with proving with one to ex its connection question There however one law is may in fact gift other. The clusion assignment raised in this of error which purchase been a
have reward for the first is can decided. That is whether inducement for the second. We be by a contractor’s violated a plainly jury lieve the permits ordinary of an business luncheon if it finds convict such circumstances a a public past officer at or fu- gift related to both transactions or was ture is transaction discussed. either them. do not believe Similarly, when there series gratuity. The prohibited gift or ment is a purchases, it burden as meets by its directed toward conduct statute is gift showing well connected employ nature undermine an calculated to it series of transactions as would employee. his er’s of trust with by singling great It is as out them. corrupt the influence involve To be must of wrong under statute for for the something the transfer of of value ficer to enter series of transactions private use. At an employee’s own ordi single gratuity relation to a would be nary employee on luncheon the business single him to enter a transaction in re not in sub business and employer’s his gratuity. lation to the same same *6 to receiving an inducement stantial sense gratuities by true as to received reason of pre frequently breach his trust. He would completed a series transactions. to else. The motivat fer somewhere employ is the for occasion factor statute, 18 federal U.S.C. § interest er’s business multiple applied al been to the employee. though “any act” in the refers official singular. See, example, United States Apart legisla- our from Irwin, supra, single where v. $400 in there additional tive intent allegedly relation a made in this authority recognizing distinction. audits; series of tax see also United States excep- early an This kind of occasion was Kenner, v. 780 cert. (2 354 F.2d Cir. Coke, In- bribery. tion common law denied, 16 L. excep- stitutes, also an It is Ed.2d 301. statute, 18 analogous tion federal in Or- recognized Executive U.S.C. Trial holding court erred term Ethi- 11222,establishing der “Standards in the “business transaction” used stat- Officers cal for Governmental Conduct singular meaning. ute is restricted II, b(2). 18 U.S.C. Employees,” Part expressly assignment are employees III. third of error the Federal A. 274. accept and refreshments apply permitted “food interpre asks us correct lunch- ordinary course of a tation of in the 741.1 to the this available on meeting or acquit case and eon dinner other hold court erred may employee ting inspection tours an defendant. This to do. where we decline believe pronouncement “A in attendance.” We properly from us on the fact sit under 741.- rarely permitted uation case the same conduct good serves purpose in future determination of cases. 1.
But free dinner and drinks aat proof, the State’s nor with a view to the supper large pur club in a improvement celebration of the statute. Neither county, if proven, chase would not should statutory construction, a rule of al- category. Similarly, be in the gift same lowing for the singular to stand for the payment plural, books of convention hotel relieve showing ordinarily prescribed would no different specific between outright under the than statute an and a cash to the officer for his own I proof Because believe element of and, use if related to a business transac involved, I believe the statute outside falls tion, prohibited would constitute purview of section and within 4.1(3) influence. expressly those situations it excepts: those “ * * * provided specifically Since defendant cannot be affect acquit- I law.” believe the defendant’s ed of this reversal case we do not tal should be affirmed. separate reach his contentions that equal protection denies him under Constitution, Amendment United States
and that the State’s evidence was insuffi
cient to support conviction. See State v. Creamery
Fairmont Company, 153 Iowa
702, 716,133 895 (1911). N.W.
Reversed but not remanded. STATE of Iowa, Appellee, HARRIS, All except J., concur Justices who dissents. James YORK, Henry Appellant. No. 54572.
HARRIS, Supreme (dissenting). Court Iowa. Justice Oct. respectfully I dissent from division II 741.1, though result. Section unusual, ways me as many strikes unambiguous. not be- I do clear *7 Code, sufficient 4.1(3),
lieve section away a vital element the of-
to do interpretation adopted Under the
fense. majority may be an accused convict- receiving gratuities
ed of the ab- even connecting
sence I believe wording requires
clear
a connection and do not the re- believe
quirement obviated section more is involved than
It to me seems plural acts situations
simply proscribing proscribes only singu-
where the statute majority in- process
lar act. unfairly
terpretation excused the State connecting up necessity Our should not be
case. difficulty
controlled influenced