State v. Brown

• Decision Date: 07 March 1906
• Citation: 130 Iowa 57,106 N.W. 379
• Parties: STATE v. BROWN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

130 Iowa 57

106 N.W. 379

STATE

v.BROWN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 7, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Butler County; Clifford P. Smith, Judge.

Defendant was convicted under an indictment charging him with the crime of assault with intent to maim and disfigure, and, on conviction, was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor in the penitentiary for a period of four years. From this conviction he appeals. Affirmed.C. M. Greene and G. E. Greene, for appellant.

Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCLAIN, C. J.

The prosecution relied on evidence which, as it claims, tended to show that Mrs. Parnie Ramsey, who resided with her four infant children about three-quarters of a mile from the town of Clarksville, was called to the door of her house between 10 and 11 o'clock on the evening of July 30, 1904, by some one who represented that he had a message for her, and who, when she opened the door and screen at his solicitation, threw some caustic liquid into her face, causing severe and permanent injuries; that the person who committed the assault was one Hugh Wheeler; and that this defendant was an accessory before the fact, aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime by said Wheeler, though not present, and, under the provisions of Code, § 5299, punishable as principal.

1. A motion for change of venue was made on behalf of the defendant at the proper time, based on the ground that there was hostility and prejudice against defendant throughout the county, resulting from the widespread circulation of newspaper accounts of the crime, charging the defendant with its commission, and from the publicity given to the evidence on the previous trial of Hugh Wheeler for the same crime, on which trial said Wheeler had been convicted. The newspaper accounts of the crime charging defendant and Wheeler with the commission thereof, as set out in the record, are not in any way inflammatory in their nature, otherwise than as a mere narrative of such an outrage as calculated to arouse public interest and indignation against those who may be found to have been guilty thereof; and the affidavits in support of the motion do not indicate any such excitement or prejudice as against this defendant as to show that he could not have a fair trial in the county. The statements in these affidavits are largely by way of conclusions of the affiants, and are fully met by counter-affidavits on the part of the state. We see no reason for interfering with the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to grant a change of venue.

2. The overruling by the court of defendant's challenges to jurors is complained of. As to certain jurors examined for cause the record shows an impression that defendant was connected with the commission of the crime, and a feeling that, unless it appeared from the evidence that he was not so connected, they would not be inclined to let him off; but as to none of them was there any showing of the formation or expression of such an opinion as to guilt or innocence of the prisoner as would prevent him from rendering a true verdict on the evidence submitted on the trial, as is required by Code, § 5360, to constitute a ground for challenge for cause on that account. This case clearly falls within the rule, often announced, that the discretion of the trial court in rulings upon challenges for cause will not be interfered with unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Hudson, 110 Iowa, 663, 80 N. W. 232;State v. Bone, 114 Iowa, 537, 87 N. W. 507;State v. Munchrath, 78 Iowa, 273, 43 N. W. 211;State v. Lawrence, 38 Iowa, 54;State v. Bruce, 48 Iowa, 534, 30 Am. Rep. 403;State v. Brady, 100 Iowa, 194, 69 N. W. 290, 36 L. R. A. 693, 62 Am. St. Rep. 560. The court might properly take into account the juror's conduct, demeanor, and bearing in court in determining whether, in view of his statements in answer to questions propounded to him, he was qualified to serve. State v. Crofford, 121 Iowa, 395, 96 N. W. 889. There is not such showing in the record as to bring this case within the opinions of the court in the case last cited, and in State v. John, 124 Iowa, 230, 100 N. W. 193. We find no error in the ruling of the court as to the qualification of jurors.

3. Error is assigned on the admission, over defendant's objection, of evidence tending to show the acts and declarations of Wheeler for the purpose of establishing the commission by him of the assault on Mrs. Ramsey, and counsel rely upon what was said by this court in reversing the conviction of Wheeler for this same assault. See State v. Wheeler, 105 N. W. 374. But in that case the record was not the same as in this, and complaint was made of the admission of evidence tending to show a motive on the part of the present defendant, Brown, to cause injury to Mrs. Ramsey, without any evidence that Brown procured Wheeler to carry out any hostile purpose of Brown toward Mrs. Ramsey. The principal, if not the only, ground for reversal in that case, was the giving of an instruction which assumed that there was such evidence, whereas the record was barren of competent evidence on that point. But in the case now before us the question was not as to conspiracy, but as to whether defendant induced or procured Wheeler to commit the crime. On that issue it was, of course, competent to prove the actual commission of the offense by Wheeler, and his acts and declarations tending to show guilt might be proven, provided there was other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the crime as instigator or accessory before the fact. If there was evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime by inducing or assisting Wheeler to commit it, then any evidence showing its commission by Wheeler was competent as laying the foundation for proof of the defendant's complicity in the crime as committed. The state did not attempt to prove defendants' connection with the crime by the declarations of Wheeler. The case is wholly unlike that of State v. Walker, ...