State v. Deitz

• Decision Date: 22 October 1885
• Parties: THE STATE v. DIETZ
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

25 N.W. 141

67 Iowa 220

THE STATE v. DIETZ

Supreme Court of Iowa, Dubuque

October 22, 1885

Appeal from Benton District Court.

THE defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary for twenty years, and he appeals.

AFFIRMED.

John Mitchell, for appellant.

A. J Baker, Attorney-general, for the State.

OPINION

SEEVERS, J.

W. B. Hower was murdered by means of poison administered to him by his wife. The defendant was indicted and convicted on the theory that he was an accessory before the fact. Anna L. Hower, the widow of the deceased, had been convicted prior to the trial in this case, and she testified as a witness for the state, on the trial of the defendant, that he procured the poison, and advised her to give it to the deceased; and the only question we are required to determine is whether she was sufficiently corroborated by evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. Code, § 4559.

The poison was administered and the death occurred in Marion, Linn county, in this state. The defendant at that time resided in Illinois, where Mrs. Hower and her husband resided a short time before they became residents of this state. The evidence tended to show that Mrs. Hower and the defendant were criminally intimate in the state of Illinois. The deceased suspected such intimacy, and the evidence tends to show that defendant had knowledge of such fact. The deceased and his wife left Illinois on or about the sixth day of July, and she had an interview with the defendant on that day; and, as she testified, the plan was then agreed upon, and the poison procured. That such an interview took place is a conceded fact. The poison was administered on the ninth day of July, and on the twelfth Mrs. Hower telegraphed the defendant at Lanark, Illinois, as follows:

"Still living. No better. Come at once.

"WILLIAM LAWRENCE."

Unless there had been some prior understanding between the defendant and Mrs. Hower, it is preposterous to suppose she would have signed the name she did to the telegram. On the same day the telegram was sent the defendant arrived at Marion, and had an interview with Mrs. Hower, and they went to Cedar Rapids, stayed all night at a hotel, and occupied the same bed-room. Whether the defendant came in response to the telegram does not appear. Mrs. Hower testified that she wrote a letter to the...