State v. Allen

• Decision Date: 15 December 1881
• Citation: 10 N.W. 805,57 Iowa 431
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. ALLEN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

57 Iowa 431

10 N.W. 805

STATE OF IOWA

v.ALLEN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 15, 1881.

Appeal from Fremont district court.

The defendant was tried and convicted of the murder of John Long. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and now appeals to this court for a reversal of the judgment against him.C. S. Keenan and Hepburn & Thummell, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Att'y Gen., for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. John Long and his wife, Elizabeth, resided on their farm, in Fremont county. They were advanced in years; their children had grown up and left them for homes of their own. The record before us does not disclose the age of John Long. It appears that his wife is 67 years old. Some time in the summer or fall of 1878 the defendant took up his residence with Long and wife, under an arrangement by which he was to cultivate the farm for the ensuing year. Afterwards a written lease was made and signed by the parties.

About 4 o'clock in the morning of January 15, 1879, Elizabeth Long went to the home of one Tarrence, who owned and lived on an adjoining farm, and called him, and requested him to go to her house for the purpose (as we understand the record) of searching for her husband, whom she alleged was missing. Tarrence at once went to the house of the Longs, and, stopping at the stable, called Mr. Long two or three times, and getting no answer he went to the house and called the defendant, who was in his room in the upper story. The defendant came down stairs, and he and Tarrence went to the stable, where they found the dead body of Long lying in a stall in which one of his horses was standing. A candle, which had been lighted, and a candlestick, were found near his body. Tarrence asked Allen to take one of the horses and alarm the neighbors. Allen declined to go, upon the ground that he was lame. It appears that he claimed to be lame from the effect of a kick received the day before from the horse in the stall in which the dead body was found. Tarrence went out into the neighborhood and reported the finding of the body, and soon a large number of persons collected at Long's place. The body was carried to the house, and a large number of wounds were found thereon. The skull was crushed in. There were wounds upon the face. The breast-bone was crushed and some ribs were broken. There were marks of blood on the stall near where the body was found, and within a short distance from the head of the deceased, which had the appearance of having spurted up from the body and then run down the wall. There was also blood under the body. The hands were tightly clasped, and held in their grip some of the litter and trash of the stable, and hot water had to be used to relax the fingers to remove it. The horse which stood in the stall where the body was found was of a nervous, restless, and vicious disposition, as appears from the evidence. He had recently been shod with sharp shoes.

A coroner's inquest was held on the same day, and the conclusion was arrived at that the deceased came to his death by being trampled by the horse, and the theory of the defence now is that the old man heard some disturbance among his horses in the night, and arose, dressed himself, and went out to the stable, and was kicked and trampled to death by the horse. In a few days another inquest was held, and there began to be a suspicion that Long had been murdered by his wife and the defendant Allen. They were arrested and imprisoned in the jail of the county. Both stoutly denied their guilt. The wife was sworn as a witness and testified at both inquests that she and Allen were innocent of the crime charged. She repeatedly stated to others during her imprisonment in jail that she was innocent, and that Allen was innocent. She was brought before the grand jury in October, 1879, and there stated that the defendant Allen had told her that he had made way with the deceased, and that was all she knew about the manner of his death. Upon the trial her testimony, in substance, was as follows: “That about a week before the death of the old man, Allen proposed to her that he should be put out of the way. Again, on the night before his death, the defendant said ‘he was going to put the old man out of the way;’ that before defendant went to bed he came in from the porch and ‘had a hammer in his frock,’ and after a time he went up stairs to bed; that in the night he came down stairs and into the bedroom, where witness and her husband were sleeping, and that thereupon she ran out of doors and behind the smoke-house; that she heard defendant pound deceased on the head; that the handle of the hammer broke, and he then got a shovel, with which he struck him; that defendant called her from benind the smoke-house, and that she went into the house and they wrapped a quilt around his head to soak up the blood; that they then put his clothing on, and that after he was dead the defendant ‘took him and kind of dragged him out through the porch and down to the south door of the stable and laid him down inside of that door,’ and that witness went around to the east door and opened it so that defendant could see, and that then defendant put the dead body under the horse with a fork, and then ‘smashed’ the fork, and told witness that she should say that ‘the old man heard a noise at the barn, and got up and went down, and that the horse had killed him;’ that they burned the quilt used to wrap up his head, and washed the blood stains from the carpet. In addition to the statement that the defendant dragged the body, she stated that he ‘took him on his back’ and laid him down inside the stable.”

It will be observed that Mrs. Long virtually acknowledges that she was an accomplice in the commission of the crime of which she testifies. It is urged with great earnestness by counsel for the appellant that a new trial should have been granted because her evidence is not corroborated as required by section 4559 of the Code; and, as we regard this question the all-important one in the case, we have read and reread the record, and given to it that careful consideration which the importance of the case and the consequences attending the judgment demand. It must be admitted that the witness does not appear in as favorable a light as she would have done if she had at once, upon being called upon for a statement of facts, given the evidence which she finally gave upon the trial. But the testimony of accomplices requires corroboration, because, upon their own confession, they are partners in the crime. She confesses that she was so wicked and depraved that she joined in the wilful, deliberate, and premeditated murder of her husband. Her repeated denial of her guilt, and of the guilt of defendant, and that, too, under oath, were all submitted to the jury with the other facts in the case, and if the jury found that there was sufficient corroboration of the evidence it is not for us to interfere, provided there were facts in evidence from which the jury may fairly have found that she was sufficiently corroborated. It will also be remembered that it is not necessary that an accomplice should be corroborated in every material fact to which he testifies. “If the jury are satisfied that he speaks the truth in some material part of his testimony, in which they see him confirmed by unimpeachable evidence, this may be ground for their believing that he also speaks the truth in other parts as to which there may be no confirmation.” State v. Schlagel, 19 Iowa, 169.

We will proceed to an examination of other facts which were put in evidence, and which the state claimed “tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the offence.” It appears that...