State v. Butcher

• Decision Date: 27 January 1890
• Citation: State v. Butcher, 79 Iowa 110, 44 N. W. 239 (Iowa 1890)
• Parties: STATE v. BUTCHER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

79 Iowa 110

44 N.W. 239

STATE

v.BUTCHER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 27, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Muscatine county; C. M. WATERMAN, Judge.

Defendant was tried in justice's court on an information which accused him of “willfully and unlawfully interrupting and disturbing a school,” and convicted. He appealed to the district court, and was again convicted. From the judgment rendered in the district court he appeals.J. J. Russell, for appellant.

H. J. Lander, Co. Atty., for the State.

ROBINSON, J.

After the verdict was returned in the district court, and before judgment was rendered, defendant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, the grounds of which were, in substance, that the information was insufficient to sustain a conviction. The motion was overruled, and leave given the state to amend the information, which was done. Judgment was therefore rendered on the verdict.

1. The body of the information, as originally filed, was as follows: “The above-named defendant is hereby accused of the crime of willfully and unlawfully interrupting and disturbing a school, for that the defendant on the 31st day of January, A. D. 1889, at Montpelier township, in said county, did commit the crime of unlawfully and willfully disturbing and interrupting the school taught by Miss Louisa Franklin in district No. 4, Montpelier township, in said county, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided; wherefore she prays that the said Ambrose Butcher may be arrested and dealt with as provided by law.” The first question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of that information to sustain a conviction. Section 4662 of the Code requires the information to contain “a statement of the acts constituting the offense, in ordinary and concise language, and the time and place of the commission of the offense, as near as may be.” The facts constituting the offense should be stated with as much precision in an information as in an indictment. Code, §§ 4662, 4296; State v. Allen, 32 Iowa, 492; State v. Bitman, 13 Iowa, 486. It has been held sufficient to charge an offense in the language of the statute, (State v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 113;State v. Brewer, 53 Iowa, 735, 6 N. W. Rep. 62;) but we think that rule does not apply when the language of the statute does not so fully describe the offense as to show the material facts which constitute it. It is not sufficient to charge a mere conclusion of law, as that the defendant has committed burglary or arson. Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr. §§ 154-221. It is not sufficient to name the offense. The facts charged must show it. State v. Shaw, 35 Iowa, 577; State v. McCormick, 27 Iowa, 412. In this case, defendant was accused of committing the crime named, “for that the defendant,” at the time and place named, “did commit the crime of unlawfully and willfully disturbing and interrupting the school taught by Miss Louisa Franklin in district No. 4,” in the county and township indicated. The acts constituting the offense are not stated. The statement does not show what was done, excepting by the averment of a legal conclusion. The information was defective, for the reasons stated in State v. Murray, 41 Iowa, 580, and not sufficient to sustain a conviction. It is contended on the part of the state that the information was sufficient, in the absence of attack, before the case was...