State v. Drake
| Decision Date | 18 October 1905 |
| Citation | 128 Iowa 539,105 N.W. 54 |
| Parties | STATE v. DRAKE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Winnesheik County; L. E. Fellows, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Affirmed.E. R. Acres, for appellant.
Charles W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and L. DeGraff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. It is first argued that the trial court erred to the defendant's prejudice in permitting the prosecuting witness to answer leading questions propounded by the county attorney, and in sustaining the state's objection to other leading questions propounded by defendant's counsel to witnesses testifying in his behalf. The admission and exclusion of answers to leading questions are matters peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and it is only upon a clear showing of abuse of such discretion that the ruling will be held reversible error. Without attempting to set out the record presented in this case, we have to say that we find no evidence of any abuse of discretion by the district court. The propriety of admitting leading questions depends largely upon the witness under examination. If he or she is young or inexperienced, or laboring under evident timidity or embarrassment, or is apparently lacking in intelligent comprehension of the questions propounded, or is unwilling or evasive in giving the information sought, it is entirely proper to allow interrogatories of this character. On the other hand, the court may well sustain objection to the same questions to a witness in whom none of these characteristics appear. Manifestly the trial court can note these varying circumstances with far greater accuracy and discrimination than we can possibly do in an examination of the written record, and we should be very slow to interfere with its rulings in reference thereto.
Complaint is also made that the court unnecessarily and improperly rebuked defendant's counsel in the presence of the jury for his persistence in leading his witnesses in spite of repeated adverse rulings. We cannot from the record before us say the censure was unmerited. It is the undoubted right of counsel to put to a witness such questions as in good faith he may believe admissible, and to have a proper record preserved of his exceptions to adverse rulings. But, when a ruling has once been made and record secured, it is the duty of counsel to submit and seek his remedy by the orderly methods of appeal. If he is unwilling to do so, and persists in attempting to override the rulings against him, he is in no position to complain if his conduct calls forth the expressed disapprobation of the court. In the present case the court went no further than to warn counsel that upon further provocation of this nature he would not be allowed to proceed with the examination of the witness. The reprimand was by no means severe, and however irritating it may have been to the temper of the counsel it is impossible to believe that the interests of his client were thereby prejudiced.
2. The appellant charges the prosecuting attorney with misconduct in his argument to the jury, but we think the complaint is without substantial merit. The prosecutor's address was sprinkled somewhat profusely with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...the contrary is to be shown.' Andre v. State, 5 Iowa, 389, 398, 68 Am. Dec. 708, 712; State v. Burns (Iowa) 78 N.W. 681; State v. Drake, 128 Iowa, 539, 105 N.W. 54; Crozier v. People, 1 Parker Cr. R. (N. Y.) The illogical ground of the contrary view is clearly expressed by the Supreme Court......
-
State v. Holter
...reasonable doubt," but did not charge the jury that any presumption of chastity existed in favor of the prosecutrix. But in State v. Drake, 128 Iowa 539, 105 N.W. 54, the court does announce the rule that: "The burden was upon the appellant to overcome the legal presumption of her (meaning ......
-
State v. Holter
......But in State v. Drake, 128 Iowa, 539, 105 N. W. 54, the court does announce the rule that: “The burden was upon the appellant to overcome the legal presumption of her (meaning prosecutrix) prior chastity.” [5] In this case, it is contended by the prosecution that there was sufficient evidence to ......
-
State v. Mueller
...matter inquired about. Fitch v. Traction Co., 89 N. W. 33, 116 Iowa, 716. No abuse of discretion in this respect is shown. State v. Drake, 105 N. W. 54, 128 Iowa, 539. [9] IV. Error is assigned on the refusal of the court to give each of 21 requested instructions. So far as the requests wer......