[Download] "State Idaho v. James L. Berlin" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10983 # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Idaho v. James L. Berlin
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 10983
- Release Date : January 09, 1973
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 55 KB
Description
This is an appeal from an order of the district court acquitting the defendant-respondent James L. Berlin of the crime of disorderly conduct for which he was found guilty in the Boise Municipal Court. An appeal was taken from that conviction in the municipal court to the district court and the case was submitted to the district Judge sitting without a jury upon the transcript of the evidence and the pleadings before the Boise Municipal Court. The district court, in a trial de novo based upon that record, entered an order acquitting the defendant of the crime of disorderly conduct. The State of Idaho, acting through the Boise City Prosecuting Attorney, has filed an appeal on questions of law raised by the memorandum opinion and order of the district court. The defendant-respondent filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the State of Idaho has no authority to appeal such an order granting acquittal. A brief statement of the facts disclosed by the record shows that on the evening of April 18, 1970, the defendant-respondent left his home to walk to his downtown law office. He apparently spent some time there and then had three or four drinks at a local bar before he proceeded home on foot, travelling along Capitol Boulevard. Defendant-respondent was observed by two police officers in a police car who testified that he was walking, jogging, hopping and skipping along the sidewalk in the Julia Davis Park area. Apparently because of a medical condition respondent regularly exercises by walking and jogging to and from his office. According to the officers, respondent at one time stepped off the curb, causing traffic on Capitol Boulevard to swerve and it was at this point that the officers decided to stop respondent. According to the district court's memorandum decision and order: