State v. De Bont
| Decision Date | 15 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 43823. |
| Citation | 273 N.W. 873,223 Iowa 721 |
| Parties | STATE v. DE BONT. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Benton County; B. O. Tankersley, Judge.
The defendant was charged with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He entered a plea of not guilty. There was a trial to the jury, which found him guilty. Defendant appeals. Opinion states the facts.
Reversed.
Charles E. Hughes, of Belle Plaine, for appellant.
John H. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Henry J. Roelofs, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., Victor D. Vifquain, Co. Atty., of Belle Plaine, and Clarence Nichols, of Vinton, Sp. Pros., for appellee.
On the 13th day of March, 1936, the grand jury in Benton county Iowa, returned an indictment against Robert De Bont, accusing him of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, and further set forth that he had been convicted of the same crime on two previous occasions. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was had. It was conceded that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty.
The appellant raises several questions on this appeal. However, it is necessary that we consider but one, and that is all we do consider.
During the trial of the case, certain exhibits were introduced. Exhibit A was an indictment returned by the grand jury of Benton county, Iowa, for the year 1928, to which indictment were attached the minutes of the testimony of thirteen witnesses who appeared and testified before said grand jury. State's Exhibit B was a bench warrant issued by the court on the indictment (known as Exhibit A), which was returned in the year 1928. State's Exhibit C was a mittimus issued by the court in the year 1928, which commanded the sheriff then in office to place the defendant in confinement. Exhibit E was a county attorney's information, returned in the year 1932, attached to which were certain minutes of testimony.
Proper objection was made at the time these various exhibits were offered. They were offered for the ostensible purpose of proving one of the prior convictions. To these exhibits were attached the minutes of witnesses who appeared before the grand jury that returned the indictment. These minutes are simply ex parte statements of certain witnesses, and hearsay as against the appellant. They are not evidence for any purpose except when introduced to impeach the testimony of some witness who testified before the grand jury and later in a trial gives contrary evidence. In the case at bar, these minutes were attached to the indictment by some staple or other device, and were offered with the indictment and admitted into evidence, shown to the jury, and, as far as the record shows, taken by the jury into the jury room during the deliberations which followed the submission of the case. This evidence should not have been admitted. It was highly prejudicial to the appellant. It was as though there were twelve witnesses appearing before the jury without being sworn and without the appellant having a right to cross-examine said witnesses.
In the case of State v. Huckins, 212 Iowa, 283, at pages 287, 288, 234 N.W. 554, 557, this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial