State v. Heinz
Decision Date | 21 September 1937 |
Docket Number | 43487. |
Citation | 275 N.W. 10,223 Iowa 1241 |
Parties | STATE v. HEINZ. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Dubuque County; D. E. Maguire, Judge.
The defendant, by a county attorney's information, was accused of the murder of David Fox. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree. Defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
Criminal intent is inferred from intentional use of deadly weapon in deadly manner, unless circumstances in evidence rebut such presumption.
C. E O'Connor and John J. Nelson, both of Dubuque, for appellant.
John H Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Buell McCash, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and John L. Duffy, Co. Atty., of Dubuque, for the State.
On July 25, 1935, a county attorney's information was filed charging the defendant, Marlo Heinz, with the murder of David Fox. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree and determined that defendant be punished with death. On July 23, 1935, Fred Fox and his wife were residing on their farm near Holy Cross, Dubuque county. They had two children, Fred Fox, Jr., referred to in the record as Junior, eight years old, and David Fox, six years of age. Mrs. Fox is a sister of the defendant. Defendant has a wife and three children. The farm buildings are south and west of the dwelling house. South of the barn is a large pasture in which Fox kept his cattle. A creek fed by a small spring runs through the pasture, and between the creek and the farm buildings is a tract of timber. It was in a shallow pool in the creek about one-half mile from the house that the dead body of six year old David Fox was found in the late afternoon of July 23d.
Fred Fox had driven his car to the home of defendant in Dubuque, Iowa, on July 23d and about 3 o'clock in the afternoon Fox, Heinz, and Pete Reis started for the Fox farm. They stopped once and drank some beer. They then stopped to let Reis out of the car at his home, where they drank some hard liquor. Reis gave Fox a pint of the liquor which he took with him. Defendant claims they each had three drinks in front of the house in the car, two more drinks in the house, and one drink from the pint bottle on the way to the Fox farm.
They arrived at the farm about fifteen minutes to 4 o'clock. Fox layed down on the davenport and the defendant changed his clothes and engaged in conversation with his sister. They talked about the garden, which he had helped her plant, and Mrs. Fox, being busy, told the defendant the children would show him the garden, which they did. Mrs. Fox testified that the defendant asked what time the children went for the cows and she told him about 5:30. At this time it was about 4 o'clock. After the defendant and the two boys had seen the garden, David came back to the house, and his mother asked him if he was going after the cows and David replied that he guessed so and went out of the house. That was the last time she saw David alive.
The theory of the State is that the defendant committed that variety of sodomy known as pederasty on the body of his nephew in the anal orifice and to conceal the crime strangled him to death.
The contention of the defense is that David, in attempting to run down the bank and cross the creek to reach his uncle, the defendant, tripped at the top of the bank and fell face downward, lying on his face in such a way that he turned a complete somersault, thereby twisting his neck muscles, causing insensibility, and because of the swelling of the neck muscles strangulation was caused, which in turn produced the ecchymosis and cyanosis found on the neck of the child; that when he fell he was badly frightened, which caused complete relaxation of the anal muscle.
Defendant admits that, after they saw the garden, David and Junior went down to the creek with him.
The testimony of Junior, David's surviving brother, as to the circumstances under which they went down to the bank adjacent to the creek and the events that followed, is as follows:
The defendant testified substantially as follows:
Dr Bries testified for the State: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S.A v. Rocha, 08-50175.
... ... any enactment of Congress, would be ... punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State ... in ... which such place is situated, by the laws ... thereof in force at the time of such act ... or omission, shall be guilty of a like ... teeth); State v. Born, 280 Minn. 306, 159 ... N.W.2d 283 (1968) (fists and body parts); ... State v. Heinz, 223 Iowa 1241, 275 N.W. 10 ... (Iowa 1937) (hands and fists). In one recent case, the North Carolina Court of ... Appeals held that hands could ... ...
- Reardon v. Hermansen