State v. Gunn
| Decision Date | 04 October 1898 |
| Citation | 106 Iowa 120,76 N.W. 510 |
| Parties | STATE v. GUNN ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Mahaska county; Ben McCoy, Judge.
Indictment for murder in the second degree. Verdict of acquittal, and the state appealed.Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Jesse A. Miller, for the State.
The indictment charges the offense to have been committed upon one Irene Severt, a woman then pregnant, in an attempt to produce abortion by the use of drugs and instruments. The death occurred September 17, 1895. The following written statement was signed by her September 14, 1895:
“(1) The man that seduced me was Mr. J. A. Gunn. (2) He was present when Dr. R. J. Boatman committed the abortion. The doctor used instruments four or five times. I also took four or five capsules prior to the forceps or the instruments. (3) Mr. Gunn came to my room several times, and came into bed to me, and got me in the family way. (4) Mr. Gunn employed Dr. Boatman to produce the abortion. Irene Severt.
The above was taken September the 14, 1895. Ira Barr. Josie Rankin.”
(Exhibit B.)
The court admitted in evidence the following part of the statement, and rejected the balance: The part of the statement excluded is as follows:
It seems to have been the purpose, largely, in taking this appeal, to obtain a construction of section 3643, Code 1873, as to confidential communications between a physician and his patient. One Dr. Sigafoos was the attending physician before the death of Irene Severt, and wrote the statement that was signed by her. He was a witness for the state; and the complaints, in argument, on this branch of the case, are as to rulings of the court excluding questions to him as a witness. The following is appellant's statement, in argument, of the questions refused by the court, wherein the court is thought to be in error: “The doctor was asked in separate questions who suggested the making of the statement; whether the question of having a witness to the paper was discussed between them; whether Irene said when she made the statement that she wanted people to know its contents after she died; whether she objected to the calling of a certain witness; and whether or not, at the time the statement was made, she requested the doctor to get paper and write what she wanted to say, and she would sign it; whether he read Exhibit B to her, and whether she said it was all right, or not, and true; whether, as a physician, he considered her in her right mind at the time the statement was made; whether there was anything in connection with the execution of Exhibit B or the conversation between them which was necessary for him to know in order to treat her case; whether it was necessary for him to know, in order to treat her, who committed the abortion; whether, at any time prior to the making of the statement, she stated voluntarily to him that she wanted to make a statement; whether he asked her to make the statement; whether at the time the statement was made she wanted to make the statement, and stated that she wanted to make it before witnesses.” It is said that the court sustained objections to each of these questions, on the ground that they called for confidential communications between a physician and his patient. The argument refers to a part of the record to show the fact. It seems to be a misapprehension. To all of the questions in that part of the record objected to, the grounds of objection are “incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, privileged and hearsay.” The record does not disclose that a single ruling is based on the ground that the question calls for a confidential communication. The ground of the ruling is stated in but a single case, and then it is because...
To continue reading
Request your trial