From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Nolta

Supreme Court of Iowa
Mar 6, 1928
218 N.W. 144 (Iowa 1928)


March 6, 1928.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS: Sentence — Reduction — Record Required. A sentence for violating the intoxicating liquor statutes will not, on appeal, be reduced, in the absence of a record which shows a substantial reason for such reduction.

Headnote 1: 17 C.J. p. 367.

Appeal from Story District Court. — SHERWOOD A. CLOCK, Judge.

The defendant was prosecuted for, and convicted of, the crime of maintaining a liquor nuisance. Maximum sentence was imposed upon him of imprisonment in the county jail for the period of one year, and a fine of $1,000. The decree specially provided that, if the fine were not paid, the defendant should be confined in the county jail after the expiration of one year, for a period of 300 days. The defendant has appealed. — Affirmed.

Bert B. Welty and Welty Soper, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and Carl J. Stephens, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.

Two grounds of reversal are specified: (1) That the verdict was not sustained by the evidence; (2) That the punishment was excessive.

The evidence was in conflict. The testimony of the witnesses Costello and Young, introduced by the State, was self-contradictory to a marked degree, and in our judgment was entitled to little, if any, credit. But, apart from this testimony, the other evidence, if believed, was clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict.

The punishment inflicted was severe, but it was within the provisions of the statute. The statute indicates the clear legislative intent that the crime charged, if proven, shall draw severe penalty. The defendant is the head of a family, and was the renter of a farm, which he had occupied for sixteen years. These circumstances were in his favor. It is manifest that the punishment inflicted will operate upon him with great severity. But it is not our function to palliate such a sentence, unless the record shows some substantial reason for our interfering. The defendant made no showing in the court below for a mitigation of sentence. The record before us, therefore, brings nothing to our attention upon which we could predicate interference. The evidence in support of the conviction is very substantial.

The judgment below is, accordingly, — Affirmed.

STEVENS, C.J., and FAVILLE, KINDIG, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.

Summaries of

State v. Nolta

Supreme Court of Iowa
Mar 6, 1928
218 N.W. 144 (Iowa 1928)
Case details for

State v. Nolta

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. LEE NOLTA, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Iowa

Date published: Mar 6, 1928


218 N.W. 144 (Iowa 1928)
218 N.W. 144

Citing Cases

State v. Van Klaveren

The legislative branch of our state government, in recent years, has made the punishment for liquor…

State v. Dalton

The trial court had the right, within the limits provided by statute, to fix such punishment as it thought…