State v. Bige

• Decision Date: 19 December 1900
• Parties: STATE v. BIGE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

112 Iowa 433

84 N.W. 518

STATE

v.BIGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 19, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Hamilton county; J. R. Whitaker, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction. From the judgment following, he appeals. Reversed.Wesley Martin, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Chas A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWIN, J.

In the second paragraph of the instructions given, the court told the jury that the state must prove, as material matter, that the prosecutrix, Anna Puffenbaugh, was an unmarried woman; that the crime charged was committed within 18 months prior to the finding of the indictment; and that it was committed in Hamilton county. In the fourth paragraph of the charge the court instructed as follows: “There is no dispute or controversy, if the offense was committed at all, as to the material allegations required by the state to prove, numbered 1, 4, and 5 in the second instruction given above. It is therefore only necessary for you to consider whether said prosecutrix was, before the alleged offense, of chaste character; and, second, whether the said defendant seduced and debauched her.” In this instruction the court took from the consideration of the jury the very matters which it had previously properly said were material for the state to prove to make its case. This was clearly error. Questions of law are for the court to determine, and all fact issues arising in criminal cases must be determined by the jury. As is said in some of the cases, the jurors are the sole judges of the credibility of all witnesses who testify before them, and they are not bound to, nor can they be compelled to, credit the testimony of any witness, whether controverted or not. This rule has been so recently, and, as we think, so fully, discussed and clearly defined in the case of State v. Lightfoot, 107 Iowa, 344, 78 N. W. 41, that we need cite no other authorities in support of it. The instruction given in State v. Meshek, 61 Iowa, 316, 16 N. W. 143, is not the same as the one given in this case. There the jury was told that the evidence tended to prove certain things, but the ultimate conclusion to be drawn therefrom was left to the jury. The same is true in State v. Fountain (Iowa) 81 N. W. 162. There, though inaccurate statements were made to the jury, the ultimate finding as to material facts was left to it. The other cases cited and relied on by the state are civil, in which, of course, the...