State v. Adams

• Decision Date: 04 October 1889
• Parties: STATE v. ADAMS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 Iowa 292

43 N.W. 194

STATE

v.ADAMS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 4, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Monroe county; DELL STEWART, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. He was tried, and convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the period of seven years and six months. He appeals.Daniel Anderson and T. B. Perry, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Mabry & Morrison, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. Prior to August, 1888, the defendant was an unmarried man, and resided with his aged father and mother upon a farm in Monroe county. It appears from undisputed evidence in the case that he was a peaceable, orderly, and law-abiding citizen. A few days prior to the 17th day of that month, he was married; and on the night of that day, at about 9 o'clock, he arrived with his wife at his father's home. The house was a log structure, one story and a half in height. Within a short time after his arrival, the family retired for the night. The father and mother occupied a bed in the room on the first floor, and the defendant and his newly-married wife slept in a bed near a small window in the upper half story of the house. This window was in the south end of the building. After the family retired, there was no light in the house. At about half past 12 o'clock, a party of some 15 or 20 men and boys of the neighborhood quietly approached the house, and went up to the south side of it, near to the window in the second story. They were armed with revolvers, shot-guns, and muskets, and some of them carried bells. They opened a sudden fire from the revolvers, guns, and muskets, and rang the bells, and shouted and hallooed, so that there was a great noise and disturbance close up to the house. After discharging their fire-arms, some of them went round to the east side of the house, near where they knew the old people slept, and kept up and continued to make a disturbance. It was soon discovered that one of the party, named Daring, had received a gunshot wound. He was one of the active participants in the affair, and carried and discharged one of the guns. He died from the effect of the wound on the next day. One Miller was the leader of the party. He carried a revolver, and, when he had his command placed in position, he fired the first shot, as a signal for the outbreak of the uproar. He and quite a number of others testified upon the trial that, very soon after the first shot was fired, a succession of from three to five shots were fired from the window above, near where the defendant's bed was located. The men and boys outside stood south and west of the window. Whether they were all in this position or not is not certain. But it appears that the deceased was not directly south of the window when he was wounded. He stood west of south. Some of the parties testified on the preliminary examination that the line of fire from the revolver in the window was south and downward. At the trial they testified that the line was south-west and downward. They acknowledged the discrepancy in their testimony, and made no satisfactory explanation of it. It will be observed that, if the defendant fired from the window south and downward, the deceased could not have been wounded by any shot fired from the window, unless the ball struck some object, and was thereby deflected from a straight line. We do not recite this discrepancy in the testimony of the witnesses for the purpose of entering upon a discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. It is the province of the jury to determine all conflicts in the evidence, and this rule extends to cases where a witness is in conflict with himself. The court instructed the jury upon the law pertaining to murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and manslaughter. It is claimed by counsel for the defense that this was erroneous, because there was no evidence authorizing a verdict for any degree of criminal homicide greater than manslaughter. This court never has held that, where a party is indicted for murder, the court should instruct the jury that the defendant cannot be convicted of the crime charged, when it is shown that a homicide was committed by the defendant. Whether such an instruction is authorized in any state of the proof, or in any case, we need not now determine. And here it is necessary to again refer to the testimony of some of the witnesses. Some of the actors in the affair testified that the firing from the window was nearly simultaneous with the firing of the first shot by the leader of the party. Miller, the leader, testified, upon that subject, as follows: “I don't think it was more than a second after I fired the first shot until I saw the flashes from the window.” And there is evidence to the effect that a dog was aroused and barked some time before the the first shot was fired. Now, if the jury believed that the defendant fired the shots from the window at the time stated by this witness and others, he must have been awake before they came, and ready with his revolver; and, if he fired in a direct line into the party on the outside, the jury might have found that his crime was murder. At least, the degree of the crime, if any, was not for the court to determine.

2. The defendant was arrested soon after the death of Daring. A preliminary examination was had before a justice of the peace. A short-hand reporter was appointed by the justice to take down the minutes of the testimony. Upon the trial, the defendant's counsel called the attention of a number of the witnesses for the state to the minutes of their evidence, and to certain discrepancies between them and their testimony on the trial. Afterwards counsel offered to read the minutes to the jury, for the purpose of impeaching the witnesses. The state...