State v. Crietello
| Decision Date | 01 April 1924 |
| Docket Number | 35681 |
| Citation | 197 N.W. 902,197 Iowa 772 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. DOMINICK CRIETELLO, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--LESTER L. THOMPSON, Judge.
DEFENDANT was indicted by the grand jury of Polk County, Iowa, for the crime of murder in the first degree. Upon trial, verdict of guilty was returned, and judgment entered thereon, sentencing him to life imprisonment in the penitentiary at Fort Madison Iowa. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Tomlinson & Maley and Thurlow T. Taft, for appellant.
Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, Herbert A. Huff, Assistant Attorney-general, and Vernon R. Seeburger, County Attorney for appellee.
DE GRAFF, J.
The indictment charged murder in the first degree. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the indictment is not questioned. It is unnecessary to recite the revolting facts disclosed by the record, as it would simply add a gruesome chapter to the literature of crime. This is not the function of judicial opinion. Two affirmative defenses were interposed: intoxication and insanity. The evidence is clearly insufficient to warrant a submission of the question of intoxication to the jury. Immediately after the homicide, the deputy sheriff found defendant in the act of destroying the evidences of the crime. There was blood on his clothing and on his person. One of the deputies asked him if he had been fighting with somebody. He gave an affirmative reply. When asked where his antagonist was, he said he "had gone out the back door and up the alley;" that the man was a stranger, and when he told him to get out of the house, he didn't go, so he tried to put him out. At that very moment, the dead body of J. H. Johnson was lying at the foot of the cellar steps. Deputy Sheriff Wilfon testified that, at the time of Crietello's arrest, the defendant had been drinking.
Upon his being brought to the jail, the turnkey stated that he had a liquor breath.
The burden was on the defendant to show that he was so far intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime as to be incapable of forming a specific intent. State v. Harrison, 167 Iowa 334, 149 N.W. 452. We are abidingly satisfied that the evidence fails to show that the defendant was so drunk that he was incapable of forming an intent to do the act for which he was indicted and convicted.
Appellant's second proposition concerns itself with the admissibility of certain evidence involving the records of the state insane hospital and the state board of control. Defendant had been committed to the insane hospital at Independence from Polk County in February, 1919. The crime for which he was indicted was committed on July 8, 1922. He escaped from the insane hospital July 25, 1920. Dr. Stewart, the superintendent in charge, testified as a witness for the defense that he was of the opinion that Crietello was of unsound mind while confined in the hospital. Evidence was introduced on behalf of the State and the defendant, bearing on the question of defendant's insanity, and the trial court clearly defined this issue in the instructions. Among other things, the jury was told that:
"Where a condition of insanity is once shown to exist, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown and the presumption is overcome and rebutted by the State and the sanity of the defendant established, as applied to the time of the commission of the crime."
It appears from the record that the personal history of the patient was obtained by the hospital authorities at the time of his commitment, and that this information was made a matter of record, as well as the opinions of the hospital examiners as to his mental condition at that time and subsequent thereto, while he was a patient. The exhibit containing this data is known in the record as Exhibit 3. Dr Stewart was the only witness from the institution offered by the defendant. He had no personal knowledge concerning the record sought to be introduced. Unless it may be said that the records or memoranda in question were made pursuant to the requirements of statute, so that they may be denominated public records, or were made pursuant to official duty, as required by statute, they do not fall within the rule making them admissible. To determine this question, recourse must necessarily be had to the statute. It will be borne in mind that these records have nothing to do with the inquisition as to the sanity of the defendant, and upon which the commitment of the defendant was made. Code Section 2261 et seq. Under the statute, the first record in connection with an inquisition of sanity is made through the office of the clerk of the district court. This is the first and original record, and whatever is recited therein is clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial