State v. Field

• Decision Date: 05 October 1893
• Citation: 89 Iowa 34,56 N.W. 276
• Parties: STATE v. FIELD.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

89 Iowa 34

56 N.W. 276

STATE

v.FIELD.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 5, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Humboldt county; Lot Thomas, Judge.

Indictment for maintaining a liquor nuisance. Verdict of guilty, and a judgment from which the defendant appealed.R. M. Wright and P. Finch, for appellant.

John Y. Stone and Thomas A. Cheshire, for the State.

GRANGER, J.

1. At the impaneling of the jury to try the indictment two of the jurors answered that they had formed opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the accused from what they had heard; that it would require evidence to remove the opinions formed; and one of them said he did not think he could try the case just as fairly and impartially on the evidence and the law “as if he had never heard of the case in the world until he came into the jury box.” Each juror stated that he had not formed an unqualified opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and made such statements as to show that, while some evidence would be required to change his opinion upon the question of guilt or innocence, yet it was not such an opinion that the district court could not properly conclude that they could render “a true verdict upon the evidence submitted on the trial.” The opinion that disqualifies a juror is such a one “as would prevent him from rendering a true verdict upon the evidence submitted on the trial.” Code, § 4405, subd. 11. Hence an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused does not necessarily disqualify a juror, even though some evidence would be required to remove it. It must of necessity be, in any case where an opinion is formed, that some evidence would be required to remove it. The statute evidently contemplates the existence of such an opinion as will not prevent a juror from rendering a true verdict, for it requires the court to find whether or not the opinion formed, if any, will prevent such a verdict. We think there was no error in not excluding the jurors. See State v. Bruce, 48 Iowa, 534; Same v. Sopher, 70 Iowa, 496, 30 N. W. Rep. 917; Same v. Vatter, 71 Iowa, 558, 32 N. W. Rep. 506; Same v. Munchrath, 78 Iowa, 268, 43 N. W. Rep. 211.

2. The defendant was a physician, and kept a drug store. The evidence shows that people would go to his store and ask for “red medicine,” which meant whisky, or “white medicine,” which meant alcohol, and obtain it. A theory of the defense is that whatever was obtained was prescribed by the defendant as medicine. Two witnesses testified that they bought red or white medicine of the defendant, and mixed it with water and drank it. The defendant was a witness in his own behalf, and, after stating the particulars of the sales to the two witnesses,--as that they came saying that they were not well, and what he let them have was as their physician, and as medicine,--he was asked as to each sale to ...