State v. Bennett
| Decision Date | 30 June 1909 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. LULU BENNETT, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. D. V. JACKSON, Judge.
DEFENDANT was indicted for the crime of murder. Upon trial to a jury she was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. She appeals.
Affirmed.
W. G Mott, for appellant.
H. W Byers, Attorney General, and Chas. W. Lyon, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Early in the morning of July 12, 1908, the body of Mary Mason, wife of Charles Mason, was found in the doorway of a coal shed which was to the rear of the Mason home. Upon the head of Mrs. Mason there was a bruise and a cut from which considerable blood had flowed. The body was found as a result of a search instituted when it was discovered that she was not at home as usual. Mrs. Mason was alive when discovered, but unconscious, and she never regained consciousness; her death resulting on the 13th of July. The house in which the Masons lived is what was called a "four-family one"; but two families occupied it. The Mason family, consisting of four members, lived on one side, and defendant and one Crutchfield lived on the other. It appears that defendant and the deceased had some trouble on the evening of the 11th of July. Charles Mason, a son of the deceased, on learning of this, spoke to the deceased about it, and she said, "Don't speak to that black minx." Defendant, when spoken to about it, cursed the deceased and called her vile names and said "she would get someone" that night. To another witness defendant declared that "I will kill me a bitch before I go to bed tonight," and to another she declared practically the same thing. The bruise and cut upon the head of the deceased were caused by the use of an axe, and an axe with blood stains upon it was found on the morning of the 12th of July standing by the south door of defendant's house. It also appears that defendant made a confession to two Davenport policemen, in which she stated: That she struck the deceased with an axe while she (deceased) was sitting in a chair leaning forward and while she was either asleep or drunk; that she fell out of the chair; and that she (defendant) then dragged Mrs. Mason around the house to the coal shed, and either pulled her in upon the coal or left her upon the outside of the shed, the testimony being in a little confusion upon this last proposition. The defendant also stated that she had made up her mind at about 5 o'clock on the evening of July 11th to kill the deceased. There is also testimony that the deceased came to her death as a result of the wound inflicted upon her.
From this brief recitation of the facts, it is manifest that the verdict has ample support in the testimony, and that, unless some error was committed by the trial court, the judgment should stand. For appellant it is contended that the court was in error in its rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony and in submitting murder in the first degree.
Attempt was made to show that defendant was insane and so addicted to the use of alcohol and other drugs that she was incapable of forming a specific intent to kill and unable to form any criminal intent. Testimony in support of these claims was adduced, and defendant produced two doctors, to whom hypothetical questions were propounded regarding defendant's sanity, and, after stating that under the assumed facts defendant would be abnormal, very nervous, and temporarily insane, they were asked if she would be irresponsible or responsible mentally for her acts. Objections to these questions were sustained. These doctors were fully examined and cross-examined regarding defendant's condition of mind upon various assumptions of fact, and, even were there error in sustaining the objections, the rulings were without prejudice. But under our decisions there was no error. The questions called for answers which the jury was bound to settle--that is to say, for the responsibility of defendant in view of her mental condition--and an expert is not permitted to solve this question for them. State v. McGruder, 125 Iowa 741, 101 N.W. 646; Betts v. Betts, 113 Iowa 111, 84 N.W. 975; Martin v. Light Co., 131 Iowa 724, 106 N.W. 359, and cases cited.
The state called in rebuttal a doctor who had examined the defendant after she had been arrested and placed in jail which was, as we understand it, on the morning of the day of the assault, who testified that he had conversed with her some ten or fifteen minutes and had examined her, and he was asked regarding her sanity at that time. Defendant objected to the question as immaterial, incompetent, and irrelevant; no proper foundation having been laid for the introduction of expert testimony by the state. The objection was overruled and the doctor answered that he did not regard her as insane, or that she was intoxicated or suffering from delirium tremens. As we understand, appellant's contention here is that the witness did not show himself qualified, and that the question of defendant's sanity or insanity was not a subject of expert testimony. Neither proposition is sound. The objection was not to the competency of the witness, and it is clear that the question of defendant's condition of mind was made an issue by the defendant. Moreover, this witness had...
To continue reading
Request your trial