State v. Dietz

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtPRESTON
PartiesSTATE v. DIETZ.
Decision Date22 November 1913

162 Iowa 332
143 N.W. 1080

STATE
v.
DIETZ.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 22, 1913.


Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; D. F. Coyle, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of adultery. The case was tried to a jury, and at the close of the evidence for the State the court directed a verdict for defendant. The State appeals. Reversed.

[143 N.W. 1080]

George W. Cosson, Atty. Gen., John Cunningham, Co. Atty., of Humboldt, and Maurice O'Connor, of Ft. Dodge, for appellant.

Clyde C. Coyle, of Hartley, for appellee.


PRESTON, J.

[1] The parties alleged to have committed the act of adultery charged in this case are the same as in State v. Taylor, 141 N. W. 946, and the transaction is the same. In that case the jury convicted. In the present case the court directed a verdict of not guilty on the state's evidence. The nature of the act is such that it would be impossible for one to be guilty and the other innocent. This makes the situation peculiar. But the parties accused were indicted separately. If they had been indicted together, they would have been entitled, under the law, to separate trials. It does not necessarily follow that, under such circumstances, there should be a conviction in one case because there was in the other. It ought to be so, of course, in one sense; yet in such cases one jury might convict and another acquit on the same evidence, or the evidence may not be the same. One of the two parties may write letters or make admissions binding upon the party so making them; the other may be shrewd enough to burn any written admissions or letters, or succeed in suppressing evidence or inducing witnesses to not testify; or a material witness may, through motives of self–interest, or to shield one of the parties, refuse to testify in one case after having testified in the other. We do not have the evidence before us in the former case, except as the facts are recited in the opinion. The instant case should, of course, be decided on this appeal on the evidence here.

The sole question on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury and sustain a conviction, if it had been so submitted and the jury had found this defendant guilty. The evidence on this appeal is substantially the same as recited in the opinion in the Taylor Case, with these exceptions:

(1) In that case the act of adultery relied upon by the state was denied by both parties, while in this case there was no denial. In this respect, then,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • State v. Wrenn, No. 34736.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 21, 1922
    ...notwithstanding the impeachment, was for the jury. State v. Carpenter, 124 Iowa, 5, 11, 98 N. W. 775;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa, 332, 335, 143 N. W. 1080;Landis v. Railway, 173 Iowa, 466, 471, 154 N. W. 607;State v. Alderman, 187 Iowa, 244, 248, 174 N. W. 30;Hess v. Dicks (Iowa) 184 N. W. 742......
  • State v. Traas, No. 45565.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 17, 1941
    ...206 Iowa 364, 220 N.W. 57;State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254;State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080. [2][3] As stated in some of the above-mentioned cases, and in others, this court, in appeals by the State in criminal cases, has ge......
  • Iowa v. Buckley, No. 1--56537
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1975
    ...220 N.W. 57 (1928); State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220 (1927); State v. Bailey, 202 Iowa 146, 209 N.W. 403 (1926); State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080 (1913); State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984 (1913); State v. Johnson, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458 (1912); State v. Fair......
  • LaNdis v. Interurban Ry. Co., No. 30444.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 1, 1915
    ...after proper foundation, that would be impeaching only. State v. Carpenter, 124 Iowa, 5, 98 N. W. 775;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa, 332, 143 N. W. 1080. It is thought by appellee that when its motion for judgment was presented the plaintiff should have resisted the motion and made a showing tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • State v. Wrenn, No. 34736.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 21, 1922
    ...notwithstanding the impeachment, was for the jury. State v. Carpenter, 124 Iowa, 5, 11, 98 N. W. 775;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa, 332, 335, 143 N. W. 1080;Landis v. Railway, 173 Iowa, 466, 471, 154 N. W. 607;State v. Alderman, 187 Iowa, 244, 248, 174 N. W. 30;Hess v. Dicks (Iowa) 184 N. W. 742......
  • State v. Traas, No. 45565.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 17, 1941
    ...206 Iowa 364, 220 N.W. 57;State v. Woodruff, 208 Iowa 236, 225 N.W. 254;State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080. [2][3] As stated in some of the above-mentioned cases, and in others, this court, in appeals by the State in criminal cases, has ge......
  • Iowa v. Buckley, No. 1--56537
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 29, 1975
    ...220 N.W. 57 (1928); State v. Meyer, 203 Iowa 694, 213 N.W. 220 (1927); State v. Bailey, 202 Iowa 146, 209 N.W. 403 (1926); State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa 332, 143 N.W. 1080 (1913); State v. Ford, 161 Iowa 323, 142 N.W. 984 (1913); State v. Johnson, 157 Iowa 248, 138 N.W. 458 (1912); State v. Fair......
  • LaNdis v. Interurban Ry. Co., No. 30444.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 1, 1915
    ...after proper foundation, that would be impeaching only. State v. Carpenter, 124 Iowa, 5, 98 N. W. 775;State v. Dietz, 162 Iowa, 332, 143 N. W. 1080. It is thought by appellee that when its motion for judgment was presented the plaintiff should have resisted the motion and made a showing tha......
  • 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