The State v. Deitrick
| Decision Date | 14 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1 N.W. 732,51 Iowa 467 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. DEITRICK |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Des Moines District Court.
THE defendant was indicted for seduction. He was found guilty and sentenced to hard labor in the penitentiary for the period of three years. He appeals to this court for a reversal of the judgment against him.
AFFIRMED.
Dodge & Dodge, for appellant.
J. F McJunkin, Attorney General, for the State.
I.
Upon the cross-examination of Christina Myers, the prosecuting witness, the following interrogatories were propounded to her by defendant's counsel: "I will ask you whether you ever had intercourse with any member of that variety troupe?
"I will ask you if defendant is the only man you ever had intercourse with?"
Objections were made to these interrogatories, which were sustained by the court.
It is claimed that the court erred in excluding the answers to these interrogatories, and the case of the State v. Sutherland, 30 Iowa 570, is cited as authority sustaining the position of counsel for defendant.
It is not claimed in argument that it would have been competent to inquire of the witness as to any lewd and lascivious acts and conduct upon her part which may have occurred after her alleged seduction. Such a line of cross-examination would have been manifestly improper, because the inquiry as to chastity should be confined to a time prior to the seduction. These interrogatories are indefinite as to time, and require an answer as to the conduct of the witness after the alleged seduction as well as before that time. In State v. Sutherland all the interrogatories propounded to the prosecuting witness related to a time previous to her alleged seduction.
There was a certain variety troupe stopping at the same house where complainant was at work as a servant. They were there before the alleged seduction, and it is claimed the first above interrogatory was competent, because the time contemplated was prior to the seduction. We do not think such fact is sufficient. It does not appear that the witness had no opportunity to have intercourse with a member of the troupe after her seduction. Whether she had such opportunity or not, however, is not material. The interrogatory should have been so framed as to leave no room for inference or doubt as to the time. Error must affirmatively appear.
II. The defendant introduced certain witnesses by whom he sought to prove that after the prosecution was commenced the complaining witness, with others, went to the jail of the county where the defendant was imprisoned, awaiting his trial, and offered to settle the case for the sum of five hundred dollars, and coupled said proposition with a refusal upon the part of the complaining witness to marry the defendant. The same evidence was sought to be elicited upon the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. Upon objection being made, the court refused to allow such evidence to be introduced.
We are at a loss to determine upon what ground this evidence can with any propriety be claimed to be competent. It is said the offered evidence was for the purpose of allowing the jury to arrive at a correct estimate of the character which the prosecutrix would have them believe she possessed. But this evidence related to a time long after the alleged seduction. The prosecutrix was then the mother of a child, the result of illicit intercourse, and her character at that time was not in issue. It would not even have tended to impeach her as a witness, to prove that she was anxious to obtain, and actually sought, some recompense from the defendant, whom she claimed to be the father of her child.
III. One Clark Marble was introduced as a witness in behalf of the state. He testified that he had known the prosecuting witness from her early childhood. He was asked what her character for chastity was up to August, 1877. His answer was that he had never heard anything against her character. He further stated that he did not know her character positively of his own knowledge; that he had often seen her as a member of the family, and had never heard anything derogatory to her character. This evidence was objected to and the objection was overruled.
The defendant had introduced certain witnesses whose testimony tended to prove that the general reputation of the prosecutrix was bad. The testimony of the witness Marble was introduced by the State in rebuttal. No question is made as to the competency of the evidence as to the general reputation of the prosecuting witness, as a chaste woman, previous to her alleged seduction, but it is urged that the witness Marble did not show himself competent to testify as to her general reputation because it did not appear that he knew what that reputation was.
It is true when a witness is called to testify to the general reputation or character of a person it should appear that he knows the reputation or character which the party bears; but we know no reason why this knowledge should be shown by set phrase or in answer to a categorical question. If it appears that a witness resides in the same neighborhood with the party whose character is in issue, and he states, as in the case at bar, that he has known such party from childhood, we think this is a sufficient showing of knowledge upon the subject to render him competent as a witness. There was, therefore, no error in admitting the testimony under consideration.
IV. The court gave to the jury some fifteen instructions. While they are not voluminous they have the merit of presenting every question, which we think proper to be presented, in a clear, plain and practical manner, without repetition, and in such a way that the jury could not have failed to understand their duty in considering the case. The defendant presented to the court seven instructions, with the request that they should be given to the jury. They were all refused.
Certain of the court's instructions are claimed to be erroneous and the refusal to give those asked by defendant is urged as error. With all due respect to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial