State v. Bunn
| Decision Date | 24 October 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 35015.,35015. |
| Citation | 195 Iowa 9,190 N.W. 155 |
| Parties | STATE v. BUNN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; William Hutchinson, Judge.
The defendant, being indicted for the alleged crime of assault with intent to murder, was convicted of the included offense of assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.Molyneux, Maher & Meloy, of Cherokee, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., John Fletcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lew McDonald, County Atty., of Cherokee, for the State.
The principal defense relied upon by the appellant is that at the time the alleged offense was committed he was insane, and the assault, if any was committed, was the result or product of an irresistible impulse which dethroned his reason, rendering him mentally irresponsible for his act.
Outlining the material facts, of which there is little dispute, it may be said that defendant is a married man 50 years old, residing with his family in the city of Cherokee. At some time prior to the year 1918, Mrs. Gladys Smith and husband, practicing chiropractors, entered upon the business of their profession in Cherokee. At first the two families lived in the same house, and later in the same immediate neighborhood. In the year 1918 Smith entered the military service of his country, leaving his wife and two children in possession of their home, and does not appear to have since returned to his family. A divorce followed. Mrs. Smith continued the practice of her profession. At times in making her professional calls she was driven about by the defendant in his auto, but, finding that this association caused unpleasant gossip, Mrs. Smith, in the summer of 1920, ceased to employ the defendant's service, and asked him to desist from seeking her society. The dissatisfaction experienced by defendant in being thus rebuffed by the woman for whom he had developed a fondness was later intensified by the fact that another man, one Griffin, called upon Mrs. Smith at her office, and appeared at various times to be paying her special attention. On the evening of the day of the shooting, Griffin took Mrs. Smith out upon an auto ride. Defendant, armed with a revolver, followed them some distance on the public highway, where he overtook the couple, and, aiming the weapon at Griffin, pulled the trigger, but the gun failed to fire. Griffin got out of his car, and sought to take the gun away from defendant. Mrs. Smith also got out of her car, and tried to interfere in the struggle. At this time the approach of another car on the road caused a cessation of hostilities for a minute or two, when defendant demanded of the woman to know if she was going to marry him, and upon her refusal he declared she should never marry any other man. Then he again produced the gun, and shot Mrs. Smith twice, inflicting severe, but not fatal, wounds upon her. Griffin succeeded then in getting possession of the weapon and threw it away, and, placing the injured woman in the car, returned to town. Defendant followed them closely home, when he disappeared.
On the trial the defendant did not testify as a witness, and the evidence offered in his behalf was confined principally to an undisputed showing of previous good character. There was also testimony by his business associates and acquaintances to the effect that he was a man of good business ability and capacity, but that, beginning with the year 1918, being about the time when his infatuation for Mrs. Smith began to be noticeable, he showed signs of mental deterioration, which was manifested in an apparent lack of his usual interest in business affairs, and was often seen staring at the windows and doors of Mrs. Smith's office, as if to obtain a fleeting glimpse of its occupant. It was also shown that after the shooting the commissioners of insanity of that county considered the defendant's case, and the abstract shows that the record of the proceedings was offered in evidence, but it does not show whether the man was or was not found insane. It does appear that defendant, alone and unattended, drove his car to a hospital or “retreat” for cases of mental infirmity at Des Moines, of which he remained a guest or inmate for about 30 days, when he was discharged with a certificate that he was then of sound mind. In response to a hypothetical question, which is not stated, an expert expressed the opinion that defendant was of unsound mind on June 19, 1921, and added that:
“A man suffering from unsoundness of mind could be impelled to do an act through uncontrollable impulse, due to unsoundness of mind or mental weakness”
--a conclusion of which we probably do not need the opinion of an eminent expert to convince us. But the hypothesis upon which the opinion was based not being preserved in the record, it is entirely without value. The trial court charged the jury very fully and fairly upon the law applicable to a defense of this character...
To continue reading
Request your trial