State v. Striggles
Iowa Supreme Court
210 N.W. 137 (1926)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Iowa law prohibited willfully having a commercial establishment that allowed gambling. A municipal court evaluated a particular gum- or mint-vending machine and ruled that the machine was not a gambling device. The machine’s distributors asked D. T. Striggles (defendant) to allow them to place one of the vending machines in his restaurant and showed him the municipal court’s ruling as proof that the machine was legal. Relying on the court ruling, Striggles allowed the machine to be installed and used in his restaurant. Later, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that the machine was a gambling device, and Striggles was criminally charged with having willfully allowed gambling on the machine in his restaurant. At trial, the court did not allow Striggles to introduce evidence of the municipal court order stating that the machine was legal. Striggles was convicted and fined. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court evaluated whether Striggles should have been allowed to introduce evidence of the municipal court’s order either to (1) establish a mistake-of-law defense or (2) show that he lacked any intent to commit an illegal act.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Albert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.