State v. Bradford, 53035
| Decision Date | 10 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 53035,53035 |
| Citation | 175 N.W.2d 381 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Henry BRADFORD, Appellant. |
James A. Jackson, Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Laughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ray A. Fenton, County Atty., and James McKeon, Asst. County Atty., for appellee.
Defendant, Henry Bradford, was indicted, tried, found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in the state penitentiary for the crime of assault with intent to commit rape in violation of Code section 698.4.
On this appeal defendant asserts the trial court erred in failing to submit assault and battery as an included offense and in permitting leading questions to be propounded to the prosecutrix. We affirm.
About 9:30 p.m. August 12, 1967, Linda Hickman, age 13, and her younger brothers and sisters were sitting on the front porch of their home when defendant drove up in his automobile and asked them to go for a ride. They accepted and he drove two blocks to near his apartment where he asked Linda to help move some of his sister's personal property out of the apartment. The other children remained in or near defendant's automobile. Soon thereafter they heard Linda screaming and a brother ran home to get Linda's mother.
When the mother arrived at defendant's second floor apartment the door was locked, she heard Linda crying, she knocked on the door and called to Linda. She then forced the door open, no lights were on in the room, defendant went out an open window onto an adjacent roof and was later arrested some distance from the scene. Linda was standing near the door with no clothes on when her mother gained entrance. Subsequent medical examination revealed no evidence Linda had been penetrated. Linda related to her mother the details of the events in the apartment and later repeated them under oath before the grand jury. At the trial, under surroundings which were of course strange to her, Linda gave no response to several questions propounded to her by the assistant county attorney. The trial court carefully advised her to listen and answer the questions but she continued to make no response particularly regarding the events which occurred in the apartment. The record sets out the details of the questions propounded and some answers made by her before the prosecutor's request he be permitted to ask leading questions was granted. Review of the record clearly indicates Linda was dull, timid, embarrassed and reticent. In response to leading questions she related the events in defendant's apartment. She testified he took off his pants, came over to her and removed her blouse, shorts, brassiere and panties and then took her over to the bed. She stated defendant got on top of her and she could see his penis which was 'straight out'.
I. The trial court submitted three forms of verdict, guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, guilty of assault and not guilty. The jury returned a verdict finding defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit rape.
Instruction 5 after defining 'carnally know and abuse' then stated: 'An 'assault' is an attempt or offer to do personal injury to another with force and violence, together with the present apparent ability to carry the same into effect.
'A 'battery' is a completed assault.'
Instruction 6, to which defendant made no objection, set out these elements of the crime named in the indictment:
Instruction 7 stated: 'The allegations of the indictment include not only the offense of assault with intent to commit rape, but also the lower offense of simple assault.
'You will convict the defendant of the highest of said offenses of which he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you will acquit him of either or both of said offenses of which he is not so proven guilty.'
Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to submit assault and battery as an included offense. We do not agree.
We have repeatedly held reversible error will not appear because of failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Osborn
...and entering, the offense was properly excluded; otherwise not. State v. Pilcher, 158 N.W.2d 631, 633 (Iowa 1968); cf. State v. Bradford, 175 N.W.2d 381, 382 (Iowa 1970). Nonsubmission of the included offense could be justified here only if the evidence established as a matter of law the al......
-
State v. Jenkins, Cr. N
...See United States v. Littlewind, 551 F.2d 244 (8th Cir.1977); Rotolo v. United States, 404 F.2d 316 (5th Cir.1968); State v. Bradford, 175 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1970); State v. Jones, 204 Kan. 719, 466 P.2d 283 (1970); Hubbard v. State, 2 Md.App. 364, 234 A.2d 775 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. ......
-
Wong v. Waterloo Community School Dist.
...when, and the extent to which, leading questions may be employed. Giltner v. Stark, 219 N.W.2d 700, 713 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bradford, 175 N.W.2d 381, 383 (Iowa 1970). At no time did plaintiff seek to invoke this part of § 624.1, and indeed we find no evidence that any witness was either u......
-
State v. Mueller
...court is in a better position than we to observe the circumstances that may justify the asking of leading questions. State v. Bradford, 175 N.W.2d 381, 383 (Iowa 1970). The supreme court has recognized that leading questions may be proper and necessary where the witness is of tender age, St......