Springstein v. Saunders

• Decision Date: 20 October 1917
• Docket Number: 31995
• Citation: 164 N.W. 622,182 Iowa 658
• Parties: J. G. SPRINGSTEIN, Appellant, v. J. C. SANDERS, Appellee
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

164 N.W. 622

182 Iowa 658

J. G. SPRINGSTEIN, Appellant, v. J. C. SANDERS, Appellee

No. 31995

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

October 20, 1917

REHEARING DENIED JANUARY 17, 1918.

Appeal from Lee District Court.--HENRY BANK, Judge.

THE plaintiff, a prisoner in the state penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the warden of that institution, to test the legality of the restraint exercised over him. The substance of the complaint will be set out more fully in the opinion. The district court denied the relief asked, and the petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Liston McMillan, for appellant.

H. M Havner, Attorney General, and F. C. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

WEAVER, J. PRESTON, C. J., GAYNOR and STEVENS, JJ., concur.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

The plaintiff's petition, which bears date of January 11, 1917, discloses that, on March 21, 1913, in the district court of Dickinson County, Iowa, he was convicted of the crime of rape, committed upon one Ora Lombard, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary at Fort Madison; that a warrant of commitment was issued by said court to carry the sentence into effect; and that, under and by virtue thereof, plaintiff has since been kept and restrained in the penitentiary, of which the respondent herein is warden. No complaint is made that plaintiff was not indicted and tried in the manner required by law, or that said district court did not act strictly within its jurisdiction in entering said judgment, or in issuing said warrant of commitment; but the sole ground upon which he demands his release upon habeas corpus is that, although convicted in due form of law, he is in fact innocent of the crime charged against him, and that his conviction was obtained by intimidation and perjury. That we may not err in the statement of his claim, we quote literally from the petition as follows:

"That said restraint is illegal, and wherein it is illegal is as follows: (1) Said conviction was procured by intimidation and perjury, as shown by the affidavit of Ora Lombard, the prosecuting witness, and her mother, hereto attached, marked Exhibit B and made part hereof; and plaintiff is in fact innocent of this alleged crime. That, in the trial of said cause, there was no question as to the corpus delicti; but there was no evidence connecting the said Springstein with the crime, except the testimony of said Ora Lombard, then aged fourteen years, and opportunity arising from the fact that he boarded in her family, and on some few occasions were alone together. She now, however, is in her eighteenth year, and endowed with conscience, and being so, she made said affidavit, at a date more than three years after said verdict and judgment were rendered, in which she states that her testimony was false, and was given by intimidation, under a threat that she would be sent to the reform school, if she did not testify that said Springstein had carnal knowledge of her. Your petitioner further states that said testimony at the trial was false, and was given by intimidation, and the verdict and judgment were the result of said intimidation, and therefore void, or at least voidable in habeas corpus; and there is no way by due legal process that your petitioner can avail himself of this newly discovered evidence and intimidation and duress, except by the writ of habeas corpus."

These allegations are supported by an affidavit as follows:

"EXHIBIT B.

"State of Iowa, Calhoun County, ss.

"Ora Lombard and her mother, Mrs. Lillie Lombard, now residing at Rockwell City in said county, being first duly sworn state as follows:

"The said Ora Lombard states J. C. Springstein, who was sentenced about March 1st, 1913, from Dickinson County District Court of Iowa, for carnal knowledge of herself, is not guilty of said crime. She states that said Springstein never had carnal knowledge of her, and she gave her testimony at the trial against him through duress under threats and fear of being sent to the reform school if she did not testify against him.

"Mrs Lillie Lombard states that she does not believe said Springstein is guilty...