State v. Geier
| Decision Date | 04 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 32162.,32162. |
| Citation | 184 Iowa 874,167 N.W. 186 |
| Parties | STATE v. GEIER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Black Hawk County; H. B. Boies, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a conviction on a charge of rape. The material facts are stated in the opinion. Affirmed.W. W. Wooley and J. C. Murtagh, both of Waterloo, for appellant.
H. M. Havner, Atty.Gen., F. C. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward J. Wenner, George D. Harris and Walter R. French, all of Waterloo, for the State.
[1] I. The principle grounds relied upon for reversal are: First, that the verdict of the jury is without sufficent support in the evidence; and, second, that there is no corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. To recite the evidence in detail will accomplish no good purpose. It appears, however, from the testimony of prosecutrix that about 5:30 p. m. on the day of the act complained of she was returning from her home in Waterloo to the telephone ofice where she was employed; that defendant drove his automobile close to the curbing, and requested her to get inand ride down town; that she thought she recognized him as a clerk whom she had met in a grocery store, and did not learn of her mistake until after she had gotten into the car; that they drove up town in the vicinity of the telephone office, but, as she did not have to go to work until 6 o'clock, at defendant's suggestion, they started to ride a while; that they drove to a point outside the city,a short distance from one of the public streets, near the bank of the Cedar river, where it is claimed the crime was committed. She further testified that he assaulted and attempted to ravish her while in the car; she resisted him successfully, and succeeded in getting out of the car; that he pursued her and threw her upon the ground, and by force and against her will and in spite of her resistance had sexual intercourse with her; that when she arose from the ground she saw a car approaching; that she ran to it and waved her cap as a sign for it to stop; that she got in the car, went up town and to the office of a physician, where a physical examination was made of her by the doctor.
Defendant testified, in substance, that the prosecutrix smiled at him, and he thought she wanted to ride in the car; that he drove to the curbing, where she got in; that they drove about town and to the river with her full concurrence; denied that he employed force or that she resisted his importunities, and asserted that prosecutrix voluntarily indulged in sexul intercourse with him.
Prosecutrix was about 23 years of age, unmarried and weighed 105 pounds. The defendant was about the same age, married, and weighed from 168 to 170 pounds.
The parties with whom she road to town in the car testified that prosecutrix was in a state of great nervous excitement when she got in the car; that her hair was disheveled, her clothing disarranged, her back covered with dirt, dry grass and leaves, and that she appeared to be injured. There were bruises upon her limbs and body, and, according to the testimony of the physician who examined her, her clothing was bloody, her hymen recently ruptured, and that she was in a condition of great nervous excitement. The testimony of the two witnesses with whom she rode to town in the automobile is somewhat conflicting, and one witness called on behalf of the defendant testified to matters tending to corroborate his claim that prosecutrix voluntarily submitted to the act; but, considering the evidence as a whole, much of which is undisputed, we cannot say that the verdict of the jury is without sufficient support in the record.
It is true that prosecutrix was very imprudent and could well have gotten out of the automobile after she...
To continue reading
Request your trial