Title: State v. Gowins

State: iowa

Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court

Document:

211 N.W.2d 302 (1973) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Larry D. GOWINS, Appellant. No. 55840. Supreme Court of Iowa. October 17, 1973. *303 Robert D. Taha, Des Moines, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Haskins, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Ray Fenton, Co. Atty., for appellee. Heard before MOORE, C. J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, LeGRAND and UHLENHOPP, JJ. RAWLINGS, Justice. Appeal by defendant from judgment on jury verdict finding him guilty of willful escape, The Code 1971, Section 247 A. 6. We affirm. Defendant, Larry D. Gowins (Gowins), was first charged with escape in violation of Code § 745.1, which provides: July 10, 1972, trial thereon commenced in Polk District Court. A jury was duly empaneled, witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution and the State rested. Defendant promptly moved for a dismissal. That motion was overruled. Subsequently defendant rested, then renewed his dismissal motion. Trial court, upon reconsideration, ordered the case dismissed and in so doing noted the cause was "filed under the wrong section." Thereafter a county attorney's information was filed charging defendant willfully failed to return to the Half-Way House, Des Moines, in violation of Code § 247 A. 6, which states: To that accusation Gowins ultimately entered a "plea of former jeopardy". In support thereof he contended, (1) the offense last charged arose out of the same facts upon which the first cause was predicated, and (2) the prior case was dismissed at conclusion of all evidence after both the State and defendant had rested. Gowins' attendant motion to dismiss was overruled. Trial, guilty verdict and judgment followed upon the § 247 A. 6 offense charged. In support of a reversal defendant contends overruling of the aforesaid former jeopardy based motion to dismiss violates his rights under the U.S. Const., amend. V. I. All doubts regarding applicability to state court prosecutions of the Fifth Amendment protection from double jeopardy were effectively put to rest in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794-795, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 2062-2063, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1969). II. By way of exclusion we turn now to Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 445-446, 90 S. Ct. 1189, 1195-1196, 25 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1970), where the court held collateral estoppel is part of the Fifth Amendment's *304 guarantee against double jeopardy. There the majority concluded an armed robbery defendant, after having been acquitted by jury verdict of robbing one victim in a single, multi-victim poker game should not have been tried for the robbery of another player victim. In brief the court determined, by acquittal on the first charge the jury had dispositively found defendant was not one of the robbers. See also 51 A.L. R.3d 693. It is at once apparent the collateral estoppel doctrine is not instantly applicable. III. On the other hand it must be inceptionally conceded Gowins was, in the constitutional sense, placed in jeopardy as a result of the first trial proceedings even though no jury verdict was returned. See State of Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S. Ct. 1066, 1069-1071, 35 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1973); Smith v. State of Mississippi, 478 F.2d 88, 93 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Armco Steel Corporation, 252 F. Supp. 364, 370 (S.D.Cal.1966); Maes v. District Court, City & County of Denver, 503 P.2d 621, 623 (Colo.1972); Black's Law Dictionary, "Jeopardy", page 969 (rev. 4th ed. 1968); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, §§ 175-176; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 241, 243; 58 Iowa L.Rev. 1000 (1973). But the foregoing does not alone resolve the double jeopardy question here presented. The constitutional proscription of double jeopardy does not mean that every time an accused is placed on trial he must go free absent a final judgment. See Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 688-689, 69 S. Ct. 834, 837, 93 L. Ed. 974 (1949); State v. Farmer, 48 N.J. 145, 224 A.2d 481, 494-495 (1966). More recently, in State of Illinois v. Somerville, supra, the court dealt squarely with the matter of jeopardy once attached, absent an acquittal or conviction, and the related constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. In the cited case a mistrial was directed because the indictment was insufficient to charge a crime. On appeal the court held such a termination of the first proceeding did not bar prosecution of the accused on a subsequent valid indictment. In support of that holding the court informatively stated, 410 U.S. at 461-464, 93 S.Ct. at 1069-1070: IV. In light of the foregoing the question now to be resolved is whether trial court's dismissal of the first charge against Gowins, because brought under the wrong code section, precluded retrial of the accused under a different statutory enactment. Despite Gowins' argument to the contrary it is to us evident the two statutory enactments, quoted above, prescribe separate and distinct offenses. In so holding we look to the elements which must be established in each instance as a prerequisite to the creation of a jury issue. See State v. Cook, 261 Iowa 1341, 1346-1347, 158 N.W.2d 26 (1968); 21 Am. Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 182; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 238 at 618. In a prosecution for escape under § 745.1 the State must establish by the requisite degree of proof the accused (1) was convicted; (2) was confined pursuant thereto; (3) escaped from the place of such confinement, or departed without due authority from a place to which he was duly assigned. Significantly, unauthorized departure is the gravamen of the offense and intent is not a factor. See State v. Leckenby, 260 Iowa 973, 976, 151 N.W.2d 567 (1967). See also Hardwick v. United States, 296 F.2d 24, 26 (9th Cir. 1961). On the other hand, elements essential to jury submission of a case under § 247 A. 6 are, the defendant (1) was convicted; (2) was released from actual resultant confinement under a statutory work release plan; and (3) willfully failed to return to a designated place at the time specified. Distinguishably, willful failure to return is the essence of this offense. Thus intent is a factor. See State v. Orozco, 202 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Iowa 1972). V. Consequently, the State could not have been permitted to so amend the original information charging a § 745.1 violation as to thereby allege a § 247 A. 6 offense. In that regard Code § 773.46 says, in essence, an amendment to an information or indictment cannot be permitted which will have the effect of charging a different offense. See also Code §§ 769.13, 773.36; State v. Hancock, 164 N.W.2d 330, 337 (Iowa 1969). *307 VI. We are also satisfied trial court's "dismissal" of the original § 745.1 based prosecution because "filed under the wrong section" was, in effect, a mistrial order with a built-in dismissal of the case. See generally Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. at 368, 81 S. Ct. at 1526; Code § 795.5; State v. Ware, 205 N.W.2d 700, 702 (Iowa 1973); State v. Critelli, 237 Iowa 1271, 1276-1278, 24 N.W.2d 113 (1946); 23A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1382; Black's Law Dictionary, "Mistrial", page 1153 (rev. 4th ed. 1968); cf. State v. Deets, 195 N.W.2d 118, 123-124 (Iowa 1972). See also 47 Iowa L.Rev. 527 (1962). Furthermore, as disclosed by the above quote from Somerville, absence of defendant's consent to any such order is not here determinative. See also United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 467-468, 84 S. Ct. 1587, 1590, 12 L. Ed. 2d 448 (1964); People v. Hathcock, 8 Cal. 3d 599, 105 Cal. Rptr. 540, 504 P.2d 476, 485-486 (1973); State v. Elkinton, 56 Wis.2d 497, 202 N.W.2d 28, 30 (1972). In any event the causative phrase in trial court's order, quoted above, must mean the court, in the exercise of judicial discretion, found an existent vitiating procedural defect which would preclude the return of a valid verdict. Thus trial court's decision implemented a legitimate state policy absent any manipulation prejudicial to Gowins. Here again State of Illinois v. Somerville, supra, supportively comes into play. There the court aptly stated, 410 U.S. at 467-469, 93 S.Ct. at 1072-1073: Taking all instantly involved circumstances into account we now hold, trial court's termination of the original action was proper as a matter of manifest necessity and warranted by the ends of public justice. Resultantly the trial of defendant Larry D. Gowins on the charged violation of Code § 247 A. 6 did not contravene his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. Affirmed.