Court Opinion

ID: 9688606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:57:58.665251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:40.577512
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.
(Specially concurring) — I concur in the foregoing opinion, except that in Division III do not agree that we should rest our holding upon the authority of State v. Hartung, 239 Iowa 414, 30 N.W.2d 491. The defendant was not required to except to the instructions at the close of the testimony. This being a criminal case he had the right to take his exceptions after the verdict was rendered. The fact that his counsel did not see fit to take exceptions when the proposed instructions were submitted to him at the close of the testimony, and stated that he had no exceptions, should not be held to be a waiver of his right to take them at the proper time, which was after an adverse verdict and judgment had been rendered .against him.