State v. Caine

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtMcCLAIN
Citation134 Iowa 147,111 N.W. 443
PartiesSTATE v. CAINE.
Decision Date11 April 1907

134 Iowa 147
111 N.W. 443

STATE
v.
CAINE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 11, 1907.


Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; George W. Wakefield, Judge.

Defendant and one McGuire were jointly indicted for conspiracy. On a separate trial defendant was found guilty and sentenced. From this sentence he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See 105 N. W. 1018.

[111 N.W. 443]

Wilbur Owen and C. A. Irwin, for appellant.

Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and U. G. Whitney, Co. Atty., for the State.


McCLAIN, J.

1. The indictment, in two counts, was as follows: “The grand jury of the county of Woodbury, in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa, accuse D. F. Caine and Charles McGuire of the crime of conspiracy, committed as follows:

“Count I. The said E. F. Caine and Charles McGuire and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, on or about the 1st day of August, 1904, in the county of Woodbury and state of Iowa, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did conspire, agree, and confederate together with the fraudulent and malicious intent and purpose wrongfully, feloniously, and unlawfully to injure the person of H. H. Hawman, S. A. Huntley, Ned Brown, John Stausberry, William Eberline, F. E. Haight, John Limebach, George Buckland, and Charles A. Wagner, and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, by as aforesaid unlawfully assaulting, striking, beating, and wounding the said H. H. Hawman, S. A. Huntley, Ned Brown, John Stausberry, William Eberline, F. E. Haight, John Limebach, George Buckland, and Charles Wagner, and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown.

Count II. And the grand jury of the county of Woodbury, in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa, with no intent or purpose of charging any offense or crime other than the offense and crime charged in count I above, but solely in order to meet the testimony, further alleges: That the said D. F. Caine and Charles McGuire, together with divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, or or about the 1st day of August, 1904, in the county of Woodbury and state of Iowa, unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously did conspire, confederate, and agree together with the fraudulent and malicious intent and purpose wrongfully to do an act injurious to the public police, and to injure the business, property, and rights of the property of the Cudahy Packing Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Illinois and doing business at Sioux City, Iowa, in the killing of live stock and the packing and preserving of the products thereof, the particular means agreed upon to carry out, execute, and accomplish said conspiracy as aforesaid, by the said D. F. Caine and Charles McGuire, and said divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, being to unlawfully beat, wound, strike, assault, inflict bodily injury and harm upon, and threaten with bodily harm and injury, and to use profane and vulgar and indecent language toward, all persons in the employ of the said

[111 N.W. 444]

Cudahy Packing Company, or who might seek employment of or from the said Cudahy Packing Company, or who might have business engagements with the said Cudahy Packing Company at their place of business in Sioux City, Iowa, or who might have business engagements in or around the building or property of the said company at Sioux City, and especially to use and employ the particular means above set out toward one C. W. Jackson, who was then and there sheriff of the said county, and H. H. Hawman and S. A. Huntley, who were then and there deputy sheriffs of said county, all of said officers being then and there engaged in guarding and protecting as peace officers the property and employés of the said Cudahy Packing Company at Sioux City, Iowa, all of said means so agreed upon by said defendants and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, being with the malicious purpose and intent and design on the part of the said Charles McGuire, D. F. Caine, and divers other persons to the grand jury unknown, wrongfully to harass and annoy said company and to frighten its said employés and prospective employés from entering or remaining in the employ of said company, and thereby prevent said company from successfully carrying on its said business, causing loss of property and damages to the business of said company, and with the malicious intent, purpose, and design to hinder, delay, and prevent said company from hiring or securing employés, and from successfully carrying on their said business.”

The court overruled a motion for defendant made after the impaneling of the jury and before the introduction of evidence requiring the state to elect upon which count of the indictment it would proceed, and error is assigned on this ruling. The ground relied on in the motion was that the counts charged different and separate acts, and that it was not made to appear by averment that the acts charged in the first count and those charged in the second count were parts of one and the same offense or transaction, as required by Code, § 5284, which prohibits the charging of more than one offense in the same indictment, but permits one offense to be “charged in different forms to meet the testimony.” Each count charges a conspiracy. If the two counts charge different conspiracies, the indictment is bad for duplicity, and defendant was entitled to have the state elect on which of them it would proceed; while if they charge the same conspiracy, in different forms, the motion was properly overruled.

The first count charges an agreement and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • State v. Peirce, No. 30921.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1916
    ...case. It has been held to vitiate the verdict that the jurors read long newspaper accounts of the trial (State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 155, 111 N. W. 443); articles containing full reports of the evidence (State v. Walton, 92 Iowa, 457, 458, 61 N. W. 179); condensations of the evidence, includi......
  • People v. Small, No. 16660.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 9, 1926
    ...effect that object. People v. Lloyd, 304 Ill. 23, 136 N. E. 505;Musser v. State, 157 Ind. 423, 61 N. E. 1; State v. Chine, 134 Iowa, 147 111 N. W. 443;Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342; Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, § 386. A conspiracy may generally be inferred from circumstanc......
  • Van Hattem v. Kmart Corp., No. 1-98-2423.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 1999
    ...are incapable of knowing the effect which prejudicial matters might have upon their unconscious minds. (State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 147, 111 N.W. 443; Commonwealth v. Jacques, 1 Pa. Dist. 287.) It has been held that the mere possibility of prejudice is sufficient for the court to grant a new ......
  • State v. Townley, No. 22086.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 29, 1921
    ...of conspiracy. Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056;Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488,82 N. W. 1039;State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 147, 111 N. W. 443;Marrash v. U. S., 168 Fed. 225, 93 C. C. A. 511; Underhill, Crim. Evid. 491. To sustain the charge, the state introduced both direct and cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • State v. Peirce, No. 30921.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1916
    ...case. It has been held to vitiate the verdict that the jurors read long newspaper accounts of the trial (State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 155, 111 N. W. 443); articles containing full reports of the evidence (State v. Walton, 92 Iowa, 457, 458, 61 N. W. 179); condensations of the evidence, includi......
  • People v. Small, No. 16660.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 9, 1926
    ...effect that object. People v. Lloyd, 304 Ill. 23, 136 N. E. 505;Musser v. State, 157 Ind. 423, 61 N. E. 1; State v. Chine, 134 Iowa, 147 111 N. W. 443;Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342; Roscoe on Criminal Evidence, § 386. A conspiracy may generally be inferred from circumstanc......
  • Van Hattem v. Kmart Corp., No. 1-98-2423.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 30, 1999
    ...are incapable of knowing the effect which prejudicial matters might have upon their unconscious minds. (State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 147, 111 N.W. 443; Commonwealth v. Jacques, 1 Pa. Dist. 287.) It has been held that the mere possibility of prejudice is sufficient for the court to grant a new ......
  • State v. Townley, No. 22086.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • April 29, 1921
    ...of conspiracy. Redding v. Wright, 49 Minn. 322, 51 N. W. 1056;Eacock v. State, 169 Ind. 488,82 N. W. 1039;State v. Caine, 134 Iowa, 147, 111 N. W. 443;Marrash v. U. S., 168 Fed. 225, 93 C. C. A. 511; Underhill, Crim. Evid. 491. To sustain the charge, the state introduced both direct and cir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT