State v. Hart
| Decision Date | 15 December 1908 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. CHARLES HART, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. HUGH BRENNAN, Judge.
INDICTMENT for uttering a forged note. Trial to a jury. Verdict and judgment of guilty, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A Merritt, for appellant.
H. W Byers, Attorney General, and C. W. Lyon, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
The note which defendant is charged with having uttered purports to have been signed by Nathan Lentz. It is for the sum of $ 100, made to Chas. Hart, and purports to have been executed February 11, 1907. The note was sold to B. J. Cavanaugh as a genuine instrument of the purported maker. The indictment was returned June 14, 1907, and on June 15th defendant was arrested and arraigned. His case was then assigned for trial on June 20th. On the 18th of that month defendant filed a motion for a continuance based upon the grounds (1) that the time was too short to enable him to prepare for trial; (2) that two material witnesses were absent from the county, and their testimony could not be obtained. This motion was sustained, and the cause continued until the September term of court. On the 17th day of September, 1907, the case was again called for trial, and, defendant having appeared in person and by counsel, a jury was impaneled and sworn to try the case, whereupon defendant presented another motion for a continuance based upon the same grounds as the former one. Objection to this was made by the county attorney on the ground that the application came too late, and that no sufficient diligence was shown. The court overruled the motion, and of this complaint is made.
I. Section 3606 of the Code provides that such a motion shall not be allowed when the case is called for trial, except for matters which could not by reasonable diligence have been discovered before that time. The grounds for the motion were as well known before the case was called for trial as after, and this in itself was sufficient ground for overruling the motion. Moreover, the showing made in support of the motion, even had it been timely, does not indicate sufficient diligence in preparing for trial. State v. Burns, 124 Iowa 207, 99 N.W. 721.
II. It is claimed that a juror was incompetent because of defective hearing. The testimony taken on the voir dire does not establish this claim. State v. Norman, 135 Iowa 483, 113 N.W. 340; State v. Hudson, 110 Iowa 663, 80 N.W. 232; State v. Bone, 114 Iowa 537, 87 N.W. 507.
III. Complaint is made of the introduction of testimony tending to show other utterings of forged paper. We do not find that the State offered any substantive testimony of this kind. All that appears in this connection is that upon defendant's cross-examination certain facts with reference to other transactions were brought out. Bearing thereon, the trial court gave the following instruction: There was no prejudicial error here. The cross-examination was proper, or at any rate not complained of.
IV. A complaint that one of defendant's witnesses was not allowed to testify as to the genuineness of the signature to the note is not borne out by the record.
V. Several instructions are complained of, and it is contended that the court erred in denying defendant's requests and in failing to instruct as to circumstantial evidence although no request on this subject was made. General complaint is made because the court did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial