State v. Buck

• Decision Date: 22 September 1882
• Citation: 59 Iowa 382,13 N.W. 342
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA v. BUCK AND ANOTHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

59 Iowa 382

13 N.W. 342

STATE OF IOWA

v.BUCK AND ANOTHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed September 22, 1882.

Appeal from Floyd circuit court.

Indictment for forging a promissory note for the amount of $100. To the indictment the defendant Henry pleaded guilty, and from the judgment rendered thereon appeals.J. S. Root, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SEEVERS, C. J.

1. There were two counts in the indictment--one for forging a promissory note, and the other for uttering the same note. No objection was made to the indictment in the district court, and the defendant Henry in the first instance pleaded not guilty. A jury was impaneled to try such issue, but before the introduction of any evidence the district attorney dismissed the count for uttering, and thereupon the defendant Henry pleaded guilty to the count for forgery. It is now urged no legal conviction can be sustained on the indictment, because two distinct offenses were charged therein.

It was held in the State v. McCormack, 9 N. W. REP. 916, that when proper objection was made to such an indictment before trial it was error to overrule it, because such an indictment was bad for duplicity. We think the dismissal of one count in the indictment before the introduction of any evidence, and a plea of guilty as to the remaining count, cures the defect that originally existed. The defendant was in no manner prejudiced by the mere finding of the indictment. After the dismissal, the indictment, in legal effect, was the same as if it had been found for the forgery alone, and is therefore clearly sufficient to sustain the judgment.

2. There were two indictments found against the defendants--for forgery, and uttering two promissory notes. On one the defendant Henry had been tried, and a verdict of guilty rendered at the time he pleaded guilty in the present indictment. On the first indictment the defendant was sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for six years, and for a like period in the present case; the latter to commence on the expiration of the former. It is said this punishment is excessive, and we are asked to reduce it. None of the evidence attached to the indictment in the present case is before us. The evidence introduced on the trial in the other case is before us, but we are unable to say what were the circumstances attending the forgery in this case. We feel unwilling to interfere with the discretion of the district court, unless all the...