State v. Eaton, No. 33433.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtLADD
Citation190 Iowa 212,180 N.W. 195
PartiesSTATE v. EATON.
Docket NumberNo. 33433.
Decision Date14 December 1920

190 Iowa 212
180 N.W. 195

STATE
v.
EATON.

No. 33433.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 14, 1920.


Appeal from District Court, Audubon County; O. D. Wheeler, Judge.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of the crime of adultery. Reversed and remanded.

[180 N.W. 195]

Mantz & White, of Audubon, for appellant.

H. M. Havner, of Des Moines, and T. M. Rasmussen, of Exira, for the State.


LADD, J.

The accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury. A careful examination of the record has satisfied us that the finding is amply supported.

The other question presented is whether the county attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct. In the opening statement to the jury he said:

“That the evidence will show that the defendant and his wife were married in South Sioux City some time in November, 1915, and that after that they went to a town named Newell to live, and that after they had lived there for some time defendant went away, the reason for which may not be material to this case and may not appear, and his wife went to live with his parents. In about a year

[180 N.W. 196]

he came back, and went to living with his wife at Glidden, Iowa.”

The prosecutrix was the first witness, and after some preliminary questions was asked:

“State whether or not you are married to Mr. Eaton? A. I have evidence to prove I was married to him by my marriage certificate.

Q. Are you and Mr. Eaton married, or not? A. Yes. Q. When were you married? A. The 27th day of July, 1916. Q. Where? A. At Storm Lake, Iowa. Q. There was some difficulty about the first marriage, wasn't there? A. Yes, sir. (Upon motion of defendant, the answer was stricken as incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.) Q. Is that when you say you were married? A. That was before the second marriage. (Answer stricken on motion of the defendant.) Q. Did you have another marriage ceremony performed, after the one that you speak of in July? A. Yes, sir; I was married the second time at Dakota City, November 7, 1915. (Defendant asked to strike the answer, and same overruled.) Q. What is the fact about your being now married to this defendant? A. I have evidence to prove that I really am married. I know that I am. Q. You say that the last ceremony was performed on the 7th day of November, 1915? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has that relation continued to exist up to the present time? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long did you live at Newell after your marriage? A. From July until the first part of March, 1916; that is, I lived with him at that time, and then I lived alone by myself, of course; and I went to Wall Lake to stay with his folks after that. Q. You lived together how...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Board of Sup'rs of Linn County v. Department of Revenue, Nos. 2-58954 and 2-59663
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 22, 1978
    ...at 758. Therefore, it is the State's duty to provide for equalization. Appanoose County, 158 N.W.2d at 180; Saverude, 190 Iowa at 170, 180 N.W. at 195. Clearly, Blackford's interpretation of § 441.28 would prevent the Department from fulfilling its obligation. The fact that adjustments made......
  • State v. Redding, No. 53228
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 24, 1969
    ...or reputation, or prior convictions, or prior arrests in its main case? State v. Brown, 100 Iowa 50, 69 N.W. 277; State v. Eaton, 190 Iowa 212, 180 N.W. 195; State v. Underwood, 248 Iowa 443, 80 N.W.2d 730; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Twelfth Ed., section 232, page 492. 1 The majority no......
  • State v. Mayes, No. 62620
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 19, 1979
    ...prosecutor during his argument should have been sustained. It is improper to argue on matters stricken from the record. State v. Eaton, 190 Iowa 212, 215, 180 N.W. 195, 196 (1920). Defendant's second complaint was properly overruled. There is no claim that the definition given by the prosec......
  • Williams v. Stanley Co., 8557
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 17, 1942
    ...reduce an assessment. The only issue before the Board or before the court was the value of the property. The opinion states [190 Iowa 165, 180 NW 195]: “We have held that on appeal to the disbrict court it is the duty of the court to do that which it was claimed the board failed to do; that......
4 cases
  • Board of Sup'rs of Linn County v. Department of Revenue, Nos. 2-58954 and 2-59663
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 22, 1978
    ...at 758. Therefore, it is the State's duty to provide for equalization. Appanoose County, 158 N.W.2d at 180; Saverude, 190 Iowa at 170, 180 N.W. at 195. Clearly, Blackford's interpretation of § 441.28 would prevent the Department from fulfilling its obligation. The fact that adjustments made......
  • State v. Redding, No. 53228
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 24, 1969
    ...or reputation, or prior convictions, or prior arrests in its main case? State v. Brown, 100 Iowa 50, 69 N.W. 277; State v. Eaton, 190 Iowa 212, 180 N.W. 195; State v. Underwood, 248 Iowa 443, 80 N.W.2d 730; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Twelfth Ed., section 232, page 492. 1 The majority no......
  • State v. Mayes, No. 62620
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 19, 1979
    ...prosecutor during his argument should have been sustained. It is improper to argue on matters stricken from the record. State v. Eaton, 190 Iowa 212, 215, 180 N.W. 195, 196 (1920). Defendant's second complaint was properly overruled. There is no claim that the definition given by the prosec......
  • Williams v. Stanley Co., 8557
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 17, 1942
    ...reduce an assessment. The only issue before the Board or before the court was the value of the property. The opinion states [190 Iowa 165, 180 NW 195]: “We have held that on appeal to the disbrict court it is the duty of the court to do that which it was claimed the board failed to do; that......

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