State v. De Groate
| Decision Date | 09 February 1904 |
| Citation | 98 N.W. 495,122 Iowa 661 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, v. HARRY C. DE GROATE |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dallas District Court.--HON. JAMES D. GAMBLE, Judge.
AN indictment was returned, charging the defendant with the crime of assault with intent to murder. He filed a motion to set it aside for the reason that it was found, in whole or in part, upon the testimony of his wife. The motion was sustained, and the defendant was discharged. state appeals.
Reversed.
Chas W. Mullan, Attorney General, and Lawrence De Graff, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
No appearance for appellee.
The defendant's wife was a witness against him before the grand jury, and because of this fact the trial court set the indictment aside. There was ample evidence to justify the finding of the indictment, aside from the testimony of the wife, and the sole question for our determination is whether the trial court correctly ruled on the motion. We think there are two sufficient reasons for holding that it did not: In the first place, section 5319 of the Code enumerates the causes for which an indictment may be set aside, and we have repeatedly held that they are exclusive of all others. State of Iowa v. Baughman, 111 Iowa 71, 82 N.W. 452; State v. Easton, 113 Iowa 516, 85 N.W. 795; State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660, 92 N.W. 876; State v. Smith, 74 Iowa 580, 38 N.W. 492; State v. Tucker, 20 Iowa 508. Again, while it is the general rule that an indictment must be founded on legal evidence, it is also the general rule that the incompetency of one of several witnesses will not sustain a motion to quash the indictment, "since it cannot be shown what weight, if any, the testimony of this one had with the grand jury." The trial and proceedings in the grand jury room are always ex parte, unless the grand jury shall see fit to make them otherwise; and the law does not contemplate a strictly judicial trial before that body, and, indeed, it would be impossible to conduct their investigations of crime along such lines. The jurors are drawn from the body of the county, and are usually without special experience in the work they are called upon to do in the jury room. As was said in State v. Tucker, supra: "Whether witnesses are competent is often a very difficult question of law, and to hold that if the grand jury, in the course of their investigation, happen to examine an incompetent witness, that this will have the effect to vitiate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Manley
... ... indictment can be set aside only on grounds enumerated in the ... statute. State v. Tucker, 20 Iowa 508; State v ... Morris, 36 Iowa 272; State v. Smith, 74 Iowa ... 580, 38 N.W. 492; State v. Frost, 95 Iowa 448, 64 ... N.W. 401; State [197 Iowa 49] v. De Groate, ... 122 Iowa 661, 98 N.W. 495. See, also, United States v ... Cutler, 5 Utah 608 (19 P. 145). The fact that the grand ... jury received incompetent evidence, or even acted on ... insufficient evidence, is not one of the grounds for setting ... it aside, found in the statute. Code Section ... ...
- State v. McKay
-
State v. Manley
...in the statute. State v. Tucker, 20 Iowa, 508;State v. Morris, 36 Iowa, 272;State v. Smith, 74 Iowa, 580, 38 N. W. 492;State v. De Groate, 122 Iowa, 661, 98 N. W. 495;State v. Frost, 95 Iowa, 448, 64 N. W. 401. See, also, U. S. v. Cutler, 5 Utah, 608, 19 Pac. 145. The fact that the grand ju......
-
State v. Ottley
...is the only manner in which the question was raised. State v. Easton, 113 Iowa, 516, 85 N. W. 795, 86 Am. St. Rep. 389;State v. De Groate, 122 Iowa, 661, 98 N. W. 495. Nor was the fact that witnesses failed to sign their testimony fatal to the indictment. We have heretofore held that the re......