State v. Dietz
| Decision Date | 22 November 1913 |
| Parties | STATE v. DIETZ. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.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.
[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, the present case is stronger than the Taylor Case, where a conviction was sustained.
(2) In the Taylor Case letters written by Mrs. Taylor to defendant were introduced, tending to show adulteries between these two in another county. These letters were not admitted as substantive evidence to prove the act charged, but only as tending to show adulterous disposition. These letters would be admissible against Mrs. Taylor, but, perhaps, not against this defendant, at least unless it was shown that they were received and read by him. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial