State v. Crofford
Decision Date | 05 March 1907 |
Citation | 133 Iowa 478,110 N.W. 921 |
Parties | STATE v. CROFFORD. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Clarke County; H. K. Evans, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.V. R. McGinnis and Temple, Hardinger & Temple, for appellant.
Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., Lawrence De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. S. Banker, County Atty., for the State.
As the facts were fully stated on the former appeal (121 Iowa, 395, 96 N. W. 889), it will be enough now to advert to the circumstances briefly. Maude Stone entered the defendant's sanitarium January 22 or 23, 1901, and remained there until her death, six or seven days later. The charge is that she died as a result of an abortion unnecessarily produced by the defendant. The theory of the state is that this was done in pursuance of a conspiracy between the doctor, Ira Hammond, and Maude Stone. Appellant insists that the victim of an abortion cannot be a conspirator to commit it. Section 4759 of the Code defines the offense by saying that “if any person with intent to produce the miscarriage of any pregnant woman, wilfully administer to her any drug or substance whatever, or, with such intent, use any instrument or other means whatever, unless such miscarriage shall be necessary to save her life,” he shall be punished accordingly. This language indicates the design of the lawmakers to treat the woman upon whom the act is perpetrated as the victim, and she cannot be guilty of this crime. Hatfield v. Gano, 15 Iowa, 177;Abrams v. Foshee, 3 Iowa, 274, 66 Am. Dec. 77. This is in harmony with the conclusion reached by courts generally that she is not to be regarded as an accessory or accomplice. State v. Smith, 99 Iowa, 26, 68 N. W. 428, 61 Am. St. Rep. 219;Moore v. State, 40 S. W. 287, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 552;People v. McGonegal, 32 N. E. 616, 136 N. Y. 62; State v. Hyer, 39 N. J. Law, 598; Commonwealth v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69;State v. Owens, 22 Minn. 238;Note to Abrams v. Foshee, 66 Am. Dec. 87. But it does not follow that she may not engage in an unlawful conspiracy with another to perpetrate the offense upon herself. Section 5059 of the Code declares that, if any two or more persons conspire and confederate together to commit a felony, they are guilty of the crime of conspiracy. This offense is distinct from the crime which it is the object of the conspiracy to commit, and the acquittal of one is not a bar to the prosecution of the other. State v. Brown, 95 Iowa, 381, 64 N. W. 277. Though she may not be guilty of committing an abortion upon herself, it is a crime for another to do so, and, if she conspires with others to perform the act, there is no escape from the conclusion that she is a co-conspirator, and that her declarations in promotion of the common enterprise are admissible in evidence against another conspirator on trial for the commission of the substantive crime. Underhill on Ev. 412. Solander v. People, 2 Colo. 48, where it was said:
2. After the first trial of defendant Hammond, who was jointly indicted with him, was put on trial and acquitted. The trial court declined to treat this as an adjudication that the parties named had not conspired to commit the offense. Had the charge been conspiracy, there would have been much force in this contention, for a combination of two or more is essential to the commission of that offense, and it necessarily follows that, if one only of two charged therewith is found not guilty, the other must be innocent, for one alone could not have committed the particular offense. State v. Jackson, 24 Am. Rep. 476; 8 Cyc. 689. But conspiracy was not alleged in the indictment. Evidence thereof was introduced merely as an evidentiary fact, tending to establish the charge of murder. The conspiracy to commit a crime and the crime itself are distinct offenses, and the acquittal of one, as said, is not a bar to the prosecution of the other. State v. Brown, 95 Iowa, 381, 64 N. W. 277. See State v. Ormiston, 66 Iowa, 143, 23 N. W. 370. Here the conspiracy was not to commit the offense charged in the indictment but a separate and distinct one; i. e., that of abortion, which, as is contended by the state, resulted in death. The acquittal of Hammond is not a bar to a trial of him on the charge of having conspired to commit an abortion unnecessarily, and it follows it furnishes no obstacle to an inquiry concerning such conspiracy in the trial of the defendant for murder. The precise point was determined by the Supreme Court of Indiana (Musser v. State, 157 Ind. 423, 61 N. E. 1); the court saying that “where two or more persons are charged with a substantive offense, not a conspiracy, and it appears that the same was committed in pursuance of a conspiracy, the act and declaration of one shown to have been engaged in the conspiracy to commit such substantive crime are admissible in evidence on the trial of the other defendant, notwithstanding the person whose declarations are sought to be proved had been previously acquitted.” And by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, in Holt v. State, 39 Cr. R. 282, 45 S. W. 1016, 46 S. W. 829. See People v. Kief, 126 N. Y. 661, 27 N. E. 556.
3. Two letters were received in evidence over defendant's objection, one purporting to have been written by Hammond to deceased bearing date “Jan. 15, 1900,” and the other from deceased to Hammond, dated “Jan 17, 1901.” These letters are too lengthy to be set out in full. The following extracts are all that are material:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Buffum
... ... Mexico on abortions? (3) Is the evidence sufficient to support a finding that defendants conspired in California to perform abortions in this state"? (4) Did the court err in failing to instruct upon the necessity for corroboration? ... Conspiracy to Perform Abortions in Mexico ... \xC2" ... 140, 145, 35 S.Ct. 271, 59 L.Ed. 504; Solander v. People, 2 Colo. 48, 62-63; Johnson v. People, 33 Colo. 224, 80 P. 133, 137-138; State v. Crofford, 133 Iowa 478, 110 N.W. 921, 922, 924-925; Fields v. State, 107 Neb. 91, 185 N.W. 400, 403. These cases are not persuasive, however, since they do ... ...
-
People v. Buffum
... ... Believing the court to have fallen into error, we cannot do otherwise than state our disagreement. With due respect for the court we are firmly of the opinion that its conclusion has no support in the cited cases, and that it is ... Among the conspiracy cases from state courts often cited by both state and federal courts are Solander v. People, 2 Colo. 48, and State v. Crofford, 133 Iowa 478, 110 N.W. 921; Others are Johnson v. People, 33 Colo. 224, 80 P. 133; State v. Gilmore, 151 Iowa 618, 132 N.W. 53, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., ... ...
-
State v. Dunn
... ... R. A. 1916C, 566;Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 14 Am. Rep. 342;Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N. E. 865,17 N. E. 898,3 Am. St. Rep. 320;Collins v. State, 138 Ala. 57,34 South. 993;Sanderson v. State, 169 Ind. 301, 82 N. E. 525;Cook v. State, 169 Ind. 430, 82 N. E. 1047;State v. Crofford, 133 Iowa, 478, 110 N. W. 921;State v. McGarry, 136 Mich. 316, 99 N. W. 147;State v. Prater, 52 W. Va. 132, 43 S. E. 230. The crime for which appellant was being tried was murder, and not conspiracy; but the existence of a conspiracy to murder was an evidentiary fact tending to prove appellant's ... ...
-
Kraut v. State
... ... Miller v. State, 25 Wis. 384;Pollack v. State, 215 Wis. 200, 253 N.W. 560, 254 N.W. 471. To the same effect, see Johnson v. People, 33 Colo. 224, 80 P. 133, 108 Am.St.Rep. 85;State v. Gilmore, 151 Iowa 618, 132 N.W. 53, 35 L.R.A.,N.S., 1084; 3 Greenleaf, Evidence, 94; State v. Crofford, 133 Iowa 478, 110 N.W. 921, 924, 925. We are of the opinion that the testimony as to the declarations of the deceased was admissible on the ground that they were statements made in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and were evidenced against others engaged with the deceased in the criminal ... ...