State v. Crandall, No. 44836.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtBLISS
Citation288 N.W. 85,227 Iowa 311
PartiesSTATE v. CRANDALL.
Docket NumberNo. 44836.
Decision Date24 October 1939

227 Iowa 311
288 N.W. 85

STATE
v.
CRANDALL.

No. 44836.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 24, 1939.


Appeal from District Court, Washington County; J. G. Patterson, Judge.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury upon Cecil Replogle, and appealed from the judgment.

Affirmed.

[288 N.W. 86]

Louis J. Kehoe, of Washington, for appellant.

Fred D. Everett, Atty. Gen., Jens Grothe, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard A. Stewart, Co. Atty., of Washington, for the State.


BLISS, Justice.

The offense of which the defendant was convicted took place on November 11, 1938, in Washington, Iowa. He was then eighteen years old, and lived in said city with his parents. Cecil Replogle, upon whom the alleged assault was made, was seventeen years old, and lived with his parents on a farm near Washington. The boys had been acquainted since the fall of 1935, and associated with about the same young people in that community. In July, 1938, the defendant became acquainted with Replogle's fifteen year old sister, and had a few dates with her. Her parents objected to her being out until midnight, and to her keeping company with any of the boys, and asked Cecil to aid in enforcing

[288 N.W. 87]

their wishes in this matter. He admonished the defendant of his parents' wishes. The defendant resented this and persisted in his attentions to the young lady, and the record discloses no protest on her part. The two boys had a few wordy altercations over the matter, with an occasional blow. Each one accused the other of trying to run him off the highways in the operation of their automobiles, and of cutting in too soon in passing. As witnesses at the trial, each blamed the other as the aggressor and the one at fault. Each had the support of particular friends, and their accounts of what took place on these occasions were conflicting. It is not surprising that there was an unfortunate ending to the feud of these young people. On November 11, 1938, there was a football game in the afternoon at Columbus Junction. Cecil took his sister and a number of young people in his car, and the defendant rode in a car driven by Stanley McKeown. There was testimony that the McKeown car cut in very abruptly ahead of the Replogle car. That night after the game and after all had returned to Washington, the defendant and McKeown, in the latter's car, followed Replogle as he was taking a young lady to her home. Both cars came to a stop in the street in front of the young lady's home. There was another young girl who remained in the rear seat of Replogle's car. All three boys got out of their cars, and engaged in a heated discussion. There is a variance in their accounts of just what took place, but all agree that the defendant and Replogle engaged in a fight in which the defendant threw Replogle to the ground and kept him there until he had “taken back” certain claimed things he had said about the defendant, and had promised to behave better toward the defendant in the future. Replogle then got behind the wheel in his car and started the motor with his foot pressed on the clutch. The left front door of the car was open. It was hinged in front. The glass in the door was up, thus closing the opening. Both agree as to this. Defendant stood with his left hand on the steering wheel and his right hand on the back of the front seat. The boys were still engaged in conversation. As witnesses they disagreed as to what was said and as to what subsequently took place. The defendant and McKeown testified that, after calling the defendant a vile name, Replogle started the car violently forward and closed the door forcibly, catching the defendant's right wrist between the door and the frame, thus shattering the glass in the door, and dragging the defendant forward, partly on the ground, for about three car lengths. Replogle denied this and testified that he gradually eased in the clutch, and the door swung shut with the forward movement of the car, and that then the defendant jumped on the running board, and struck at Replogle with his left fist and drove it through the glass, causing the pieces and particles of glass to scatter over the inside of the car. One of these slivers of glass struck Replogle's right eye ball, so cutting and injuring it that he lost the sight thereof. The young lady in the rear seat of the car corroborated Replogle in his version of what took place, particularly as to what happened after the scuffle outside of the car.

On this appeal the defendant assigns and argues the four following errors as grounds for reversal: 1. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial based on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict of the jury. 2. The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for a directed verdict, at the conclusion of the evidence. 3. The court erred in admitting evidence of the operation of the McKeown car on the afternoon of November 11th, on the road to Columbus Junction, and in overruling defendant's motion to strike the same after it became apparent, beyond dispute, that the defendant was not driving that car and had no control over it. 4. The court erred in admitting evidence of the state's rebuttal witness, Keisey, an officer who arrested defendant, over the objection of the defendant that the testimony was not rebuttal, and a violation of the rule requiring notice of additional testimony, and in refusing to strike this testimony. The italicized statements, in the examination following, is the testimony of which defendant complains. Keisey testified as follows:

“Q. Where did you see him and under what circumstances? Defendant objects as not rebuttal.

Court: Overruled.

Defendant excepts.

A. I saw him first at the Sinclair station, the Sinclair Oil Station.

Q. Where is that? A. On North Marion Ave.

Q. Go ahead and tell what happened there. Defendant objects as not rebuttal.

[288 N.W. 88]

Court: Overruled.

Defendant excepts.

A. The deputy sheriff and I went down and got Crandall at the filling station and took him to the county jail.

Q. What was said down at the filling station, if anything?

Defendant objects as not rebuttal.

Court: I think the Court should know what he is ruling on.

Q. Mr. Keisey tell the court and jury what was said down at the filling station by the defendant. Defendant objects as not rebuttal.

Court: Overruled.

Defendant excepts.

A. Crandall was sleeping under the filling station, and I called to him to come out and he came out and the deputy sheriff with me told him he better come with us, and Crandall said ‘I was afraid of that.’

Q. Where did you take him? A. To the County Jail.

Q. Did you have any further conversation with him? Defendant objects as not rebuttal, if anything it is part of the State's case.

Court: Overruled.

Defendant excepts.

Q. What did Crandall say if anything? A. We asked him to tell us his story and he says: ‘Well, I finally caught up with the guy.’

Q. Was there anything more said? A. He told us what happened.

The defendant objects to all this testimony, as not rebuttal and moves to strike it out for that reason.”

[1][2][3][4][5][6] Under the first two assignments of error, the defendant contends that the state failed to establish the allegations of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • State v. Knox, No. 46509.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 25, 1945
    ...the jury where there is supporting such verdict substantial testimony. State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 264 N.W. 24;State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 288 N.W. 85;State v. Cummings, 128 Iowa 522, 105 N.W. 57; State v. Richardson, 179 Iowa 770, 162 N.W. 28, L.R.A.1917D, 944. It has likewise......
  • State v. Franklin, No. 47622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1951
    ...the judgment entered thereon is final and is binding on this court. State v. Ferguson, 233 Iowa 354, 359, 6 N.W.2d 856; State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 318, 288 N.W. 85; State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123-1124, 264 N.W. 24; State v. Manly, 211 Iowa 1043, 1046, 233 N.W. 110; State v. ......
  • State v. Frommelt, No. 52834
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 11, 1968
    ...several times the charge of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury is impossible of precise definition. In State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 315, 288 N.W. 85, 88, we said, 'The defendant was charged with the crime of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. This is a c......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 47153.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 15, 1948
    ...v. Schmidt, Iowa, 30 N.W.2d 473;State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 11 N.W.2d 737;State v. Hiatt, 231 Iowa 499, 1 N.W.2d 664.State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 288 N.W. 85; v. McKenzie, 204 Iowa 833, 216 N.W. 29;State v. King, 198 Iowa 325, 197 N.W. 981. The record shows the following facts: Appell......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • State v. Knox, No. 46509.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 25, 1945
    ...the jury where there is supporting such verdict substantial testimony. State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 264 N.W. 24;State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 288 N.W. 85;State v. Cummings, 128 Iowa 522, 105 N.W. 57; State v. Richardson, 179 Iowa 770, 162 N.W. 28, L.R.A.1917D, 944. It has likewise......
  • State v. Franklin, No. 47622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 6, 1951
    ...the judgment entered thereon is final and is binding on this court. State v. Ferguson, 233 Iowa 354, 359, 6 N.W.2d 856; State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 318, 288 N.W. 85; State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123-1124, 264 N.W. 24; State v. Manly, 211 Iowa 1043, 1046, 233 N.W. 110; State v. ......
  • State v. Frommelt, No. 52834
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 11, 1968
    ...several times the charge of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury is impossible of precise definition. In State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 315, 288 N.W. 85, 88, we said, 'The defendant was charged with the crime of assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. This is a c......
  • State v. Thompson, No. 47153.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 15, 1948
    ...v. Schmidt, Iowa, 30 N.W.2d 473;State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 11 N.W.2d 737;State v. Hiatt, 231 Iowa 499, 1 N.W.2d 664.State v. Crandall, 227 Iowa 311, 288 N.W. 85; v. McKenzie, 204 Iowa 833, 216 N.W. 29;State v. King, 198 Iowa 325, 197 N.W. 981. The record shows the following facts: Appell......
  • 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