State v. Hamilton

• Citation: 132 N.W. 44,151 Iowa 533
• Parties: STATE v. HAMILTON.
• Decision Date: 05 July 1911
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

151 Iowa 533

132 N.W. 44

STATE

v.HAMILTON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 5, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Decatur County; H. K. Evans, Judge.

Defendant was accused of murder in the second degree, and convicted of manslaughter. He appeals. Affirmed.C. W. Hoffman and V. R. McGinnis, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Geo. W. Baker, Co. Atty., and Henry E. Sampson, Sp. Counsel, for the State.

LADD, J.

In the afternoon of September 27, 1909, several persons were near the park at Davis City. Of these the accused and his cousin, Samuel Hamilton, were engaged in a game of high spades, when the latter seized the former about the neck and struck him twice. Whether the accused had cheated is in dispute, as is also whether Samuel drew a knife and threatened to cut his antagonist's throat. The accused pulled away and immediately went to the business portion of the village, and purchased a 38-caliber revolver at one store and cartridges at another, loaded the revolver, and started back toward the park. Meeting deceased near the bridge, he fired twice, one of the bullets passing through Samuel's head and causing death in 18 hours. The deceased was unarmed, and his hands were in his pockets after being shot. Probably he was reputed a dangerous and quarrelsome man with some reason, and the accused testified that, as he approached him on his return, he tendered back the money he had won from him at high spades, and proffered friendship, but that deceased responded that it was not the money, but the accused, he was after, and reached for his pocket, and that the defendant fired upon him to save his own life. The defendant claimed to have been on his way home, but must have known that he would meet deceased, and was shown to have made no response to those accosting him when going to and returning from the store. His story was somewhat corroborated by the testimony of one Wheeler, who, in turn, was discredited by evidence that he had made contradictory statements, while the theory of the state that deceased was deliberately shot down in cold blood was confirmed by the story of a witness whose reputation for veracity was assailed, and by several witnesses who did not notice any demonstration by deceased. Just how the jury came to ignore the circumstance that deceased fell with his hands in his pockets, silent but uncontroverted evidence that the testimony that he reached for his pocket was untrue, and the...