State v. Gillett
| Decision Date | 20 June 1881 |
| Citation | 56 Iowa 459,9 N.W. 362 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. GILLETT. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Floyd district court.
The defendant was indicted for an assault upon one Zeaman Magoon, with intent to inflict a great bodily injury. He was tried and found guilty, as charged, and he appeals.Miller & Cliggett, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Att'y Gen., for the State.
1. The prosecuting witness, Zeaman Magoon, at the time of the injury complained of, lived with the defendant, and at the time of the trial was about eight years old. He testified that the defendant whipped him with a crupper to harness, with a buckle on the end of it. He was examined some time afterwards, and injuries covered with scabs, some of which were suppurating, were found on his back and side. The court gave the jury an instruction an follows:
The giving of this instruction is assigned as error. It must be conceded that the instruction does not furnish the jury the means of determining what is the extent of an injury which will constitute a great bodily injury, for the limits of an assault and battery, with which it is compared and which it is declared to exceed, are not defined; and yet it must be admitted that the instruction defines a great bodily injnry as accurately and completely as it is susceptible of definition, as a matter of law. Whether an injury is a great or only a slight bodily injury is essentially a question of fact, and it is difficult to see how any greater aid can be furnished the jury in determining that question, than was done by the court in this case. It is true that a great bodily injury is an injury to the person of a more grave and serious character than an ordinary battery. The objection to the instruction is not that it states an incorrect proposition, but that the proposition stated is not presented with sufficient completeness. We are unable to perceive how the defendant could in any way have been prejudiced by the instruction.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Schmidt
...The extent of the injury, if any, although not in itself determinative of the intent, may be considered as bearing thereon. State v. Gillett, 56 Iowa 459, 9 N.W. 362; State v. Ockij, 165 Iowa 237, 145 N.W. 486; State v. Dickson, 200 Iowa 17, 202 N.W. 225; State v. Grimm, 206 Iowa 1178, 221 ......
-
State v. Mitchell
...intent to inflict great bodily injury admits of no doubt. A great bodily injury is not capable of very exact description. State v. Gillett, 56 Iowa, 459, 9 N. W. 362. The intent here was therefore sufficiently described. It is further said there was no instruction requiring the jury to find......
-
State v. Davis
...a particular injury is within the meaning of the statute is generally a question of fact for the jury, and not of the law. See State v. Gillett, 56 Iowa, 459 . That a great bodily injury, within the meaning the statute, may be inflicted without the use of a 'dangerous' or even 'offensive' w......
-
State v. L. Mitchell
... ... person a great bodily injury. That the intent to injure ... another by discharging a loaded gun at him would be at least ... an intent to inflict great bodily injury admits of no doubt ... A great bodily injury is not capable of very exact ... description. State v. Gillett, 56 Iowa 459, 9 N.W ... 362. The intent here was therefore sufficiently described ... It is ... further said there was no instruction requiring the jury to ... find that the assault was unlawful. But the acts charged in ... the indictment as having been willfully and ... ...