Opinion ID: 1270240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First to be entertained is defendant's asserted error regarding his directed verdict motion.

Text: He now contends the aforesaid motion should have been sustained because (1) the State failed to establish a prima facie case against him, and (2) 1971 Session of the Sixty-Fourth General Assembly, chapter 148, section 507 [see The Code 1973, Section 204.507] relating to burden of proof is unconstitutional. As best determinable from the record at hand defendant's directed verdict motion was interposed after presentation of the State's case but not renewed at close of all the evidence. Proceeding on that assumption it appears the asserted error, if any, was waived. See State v. Tokatlian, 203 N.W.2d 116, 119 (Iowa 1972). Be that as it may the above mentioned constitutional issue is here voiced for the first time. Consequently it need not be accorded appellate review. See State v. Joss, 211 N.W.2d 320, 321 (Iowa 1973); State v. Nepple, 211 N.W.2d 330, 333 (Iowa 1973). In any event, the arguments here advanced were resolved adverse to defendant in State v. Lynch, 197 N.W.2d 186, 190 (Iowa 1972). See also Horn v. Haugh, 209 N.W.2d 119, 121 (Iowa 1973); cf. State v. Vietor, 208 N.W.2d 894, 899 (Iowa 1973). There is no merit in the instant assignment.