Case Title: State v. Hocker

Citation: 201 N.W.2d 74

Docket Number: 

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1972-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
201 N.W.2d 74 (1972) STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. William HOCKER, Appellee. No. 54398. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 19, 1972. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard N. Winders, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Barry M. Anderson, Deputy County Atty., for appellant. N. E. McManus, Keokuk, for appellee. PER CURIAM: Defendant, William Hocker, was charged with the crime of hunting by artificial light contrary to Code section 109.93. A jury found him not guilty and the trial court entered a judgment of acquittal. On the State's appeal we reverse. We do not remand as defendant has been in jeopardy. Code section 793.9. The State contends trial court erred in giving instruction 10 to which timely specific objections were made. Instruction 10 was: Code section 109.93 under which defendant was charged, tried and acquitted provides in pertinent part: Where a statute is plain and the meaning clear, courts are not permitted to search for its meaning beyond its expressed terms. We are not permitted to write into the statute words which are not there. Dingman v. City of Council Bluffs, 249 Iowa 1121, 1126, 90 N.W.2d 742, 746; In re Adoption of Alley, 234 Iowa 931, 934, *75 14 N.W.2d 742, 744; Eysink v. Board, 229 Iowa 1240, 1244, 296 N.W. 376, 378, and citations. Section 109.93 clearly states the only exception to the prohibition against hunting by artificial light. It has no application to the facts shown in this case. Dogs were not being used. No treed animal was being pursued. It was error to instruct on an exception to the statute which is plainly not present in its language. Reversed but not remanded.