State v. Boucher
Decision Date | 29 July 1946 |
Docket Number | 46778. |
Citation | 23 N.W.2d 851,237 Iowa 772 |
Parties | STATE v. BOUCHER. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., Charles H. Scholtz, Asst. Atty. Gen and George O. Hurley, Co. Atty. of Shelby County, of Harlan for appellant.
White & White and Bennett Cullison, all of Harlan, for appellee.
The defendant, Bernard Boucher, was indicted on February 28, 1945 by the grand jury of Shelby County, Iowa. The indictment charged him with the crime of rape as defined by section 12966 of the 1939 Code of Iowa, section 698.1 of the 1946 Code of Iowa. It was alleged that the crime was committed on the prosecuting witness on September 28, 1943. The defendant on March 2, 1945 entered a plea of not guilty. On March 5 1945 the defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars which was denied and overruled by the court on April 2, 1945. On this last-mentioned date the defendant filed a motion to set aside the indictment. On April 3, 1945 the court sustained this motion and an order was then entered setting aside the indictment. The State of Iowa has appealed from the last referred to ruling and order.
In the motion for a bill of particulars, and also in the motion to set aside the indictment, it is contended that the minutes of the testimony of the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury do not disclose any evidence which would corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness as a matter of law. Section 13900 of the 1939 Code of Iowa, section 782.4 of the 1946 Code of Iowa.
The State of Iowa as appellant, states in its brief and argument that the sole question presented to this court on this appeal is: May a court set aside an indictment that charges a crime which requires corroboration, because the minutes of testimony attached to the indictment do not contain testimony which would, as a matter of law, corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix as attached to the indictment. The appellee Bernard Boucher, is in agreement that the question as heretofore stated is the only one presented for our consideration.
We do not deem it necessary to set out in detail the testimony of the prosecutrix and of the several other witnesses as incorporated in the minutes attached to the indictment. We shall, in the main, discuss only the legal proposition presented and as heretofore set forth.
I. The authorities, generally, hold that an indictment should not be quashed or dismissed because of insufficiency of evidence. In 27 Am.Jur. 718, section 170, it is stated: * * *'
In 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 209, p. 1194, the following statement is found: 'On a motion to quash an indictment the court ordinarily will not review the character of the evidence on which the indictment was found and will not quash the indictment for mere insufficiency of evidence before the grand jury.'
For a summarization of annotation of cases bearing upon the statements previously quoted see 31 A.L.R. 1479, 59 A.L.R. 573, 579.
The prior holdings of this court support the general rule heretofore set forth. In State v. Smith, 74 Iowa 580, 584, 38 N.W. 492, 494, this court stated:
II. The consideration of certain statutory enactments is necessary in our study of the legal proposition presented on this appeal. Code section 13781, 1939 Code, section 776.1 of the 1946 Code, is as follows:
'Grounds for setting aside indictment. The motion to set aside the indictment can be made, before a plea is entered by the defendant, on one or more of the following grounds, and must be sustained:
'1. When it is not indorsed 'a true bill' and the indorsement signed by the foreman of the grand jury as prescribed by this code.
'2. When the names of all witnesses examined before the grand jury are not indorsed thereon.
'3. When the minutes of the evidence of the witnesses examined before the grand jury are not returned therewith.
'4. When it has not been presented and marked 'filed' as prescribed by this code.
'5. When any person other than the grand jurors was present before the grand jury when the question was taken upon the finding of the indictment.
'6. When any person other than the grand jurors was present before the grand jury during the investigation of the charge, except as required or permitted by law.
Section 13732.04 of the 1939 Code, section 773.5 of the 1946 Code, sets forth the circumstances and conditions which will justify and authorize the court to order a county attorney to furnish a defendant charged with a crime with a bill of particulars wherein may be set forth a fact which the court may deem necessary to be furnished the defendant as an aid in preparing his defense.
Section 13732.05 of the 1939 Code, section 773.6 of the 1946 Code, is, in part as follows:
It will be observed that the first referred to Code section gives the grounds for setting aside an indictment where a bill of particulars has not been asked by the defendant. The last referred to section sets out additional grounds for setting aside an indictment when a bill of particulars has been furnished. In neither of the sections set forth is insufficiency of evidence set out as a ground for setting aside an indictment.
The grounds for setting aside an indictment set out in the several Code sections are the exclusive grounds upon which the court can so act. In State v. Baughman, 111 Iowa 71, 72, 82 N.W. 452, 453, we said: * * *'
It is also stated in State v. De Groate, 122 Iowa 661, 662, 98 N.W. 495 496, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Boucher
...237 Iowa 77223 N.W.2d 851STATEv.BOUCHER.No. 46778.Supreme Court of Iowa.July 29, Appeal from District Court, Shelby County; Vernon Johnson, Judge. The defendant, Bernard Boucher, was indicted, charged with the crime of rape. After certain preliminary proceedings were had the defendant filed......