State v. Hetland

• Decision Date: 10 March 1909
• Citation: 141 Iowa 524,119 N.W. 961
• Parties: STATE v. HETLAND.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

141 Iowa 524

119 N.W. 961

STATE

v.HETLAND.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 10, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Wright County; W. D. Evans, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, and appeals. Affirmed.W. E. Bullard, T. D. Healy, and Healy & Healy, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and C. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LADD, J.

The accused was the pastor of the Norwegian Lutheran Church at Belmont. His wife was away on a visit, and while in Des Moines he employed Senna Oklund to do his housework, stipulating to pay her railroad fare to Belmont and $4 per week for her services. They reached that place in the afternoon of April 12, 1906, and she was assigned to the east room of the upper story of the house, to which her trunk was taken. After the evening meal, which she had prepared, defendant's son departed with a neighbor's boy to stay at the latter's home over night. Prosecutrix completed her work and was invited by defendant into the sitting room. She declined, with the statement that she had better stay in the kitchen as she was suffering from a cold. He suggested a little whisky and warm water, and, being answered “that maybe it would be a good thing,” got some for her and took a little himself. Shortly thereafter and at about 9 o'clock she retired to her bedroom, but, as there was no key, did not lock the door. Scarcely had she extinguished the light and gotten into bed, when the accused, as she testified, entered the room and got into bed with her, saying that he meant to sleep with her, as he had no wife, and that “there should not be any baby of it.” It is unnecessary to describe the struggle which followed, save to say that she escaped from the bed and also from the house, notwithstanding his efforts to restrain and overcome her, and, in her nightclothes, reached an outside closet with him still pursuing. She was able to exclude him by throwing herself against the door, and, after some parley, induced him to bring her shoes and some clothing, and, upon his return to the house, she fled to the home of one Johnson, some 60 rods distant, and immediately made complaint. Her testimony was sufficient to establish the commission of the assault as alleged, but to justify the conviction of the defendant this must have been corroborated by other evidence tending to connect defendant with the commission of the crime. The quantum of such evidence is not otherwise prescribed by law. If there was any evidence tending to strengthen or corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix, and thereby to single or point out the defendant as the perpetrator of the offense, its sufficiency was for the jury. State v. Ralston (Iowa) 116 N. W. 1058;State v. Stevens, 133 Iowa, 684, 110 N. W. 1037;State v. Norris, 127 Iowa, 683, 104 N. W. 282;State v. Carnagy, 106 Iowa, 490, 76 N. W. 805.

Was there such evidence? We think there were three circumstances which tended to corroborate the prosecutrix: (1) Thompson testified that in soliciting him to sign a bail bond defendant said in reference to the charge that he had used no force; (2) Mrs. Hextal testified that, in speaking of the same charge, defendant declared that he had never used any force or power on prosecutrix; and (3) the alleged flight of the defendant. If, as the jury might have found, the defendant made the statements to Thompson and Mrs. Hextal, it might have been inferred therefrom by the jury that he admitted an attempt to have intercourse with prosecutrix, though without the exertion of force. This does not seem to be controverted by counsel for appellant; but they insist that, even if this were so, such admission would not constitute corroborative evidence such as contemplated by the statute. Their thought is that the use of the force must be corroborated, and reliance is put on State v. Cassidy, 85 Iowa, 145, 52 N. W. 1. The court, in what was there said, had reference to the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole to justify conviction. This is evident from the citation of State v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 82, where it was said that a confession of having had sexual intercourse at the time alleged might be considered as corroborative evidence. In State v. Forsythe, 99 Iowa, 1, 68 N. W. 446, it was again decided that evidence of defendant's admissions that he had had intercourse with prosecutrix was evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. See, also, State v. Sigg, 86 Iowa, 746, 53 N. W. 261. The corroboration exacted is not of the commission of the offense, but of the accused's connection therewith, and, if it is made to appear that he had admitted having sexual intercourse or attempted it at about the time alleged, this would tend to point him out as the perpetrator of the offense, which might be established by the evidence of the prosecutrix alone. If then it might be inferred from what defendant said to the two witnesses that he admitted having attempted intercourse with prosecutrix without force, this might have been found to be sufficient corroboration. So, too, if the jury found that he fled the country to avoid or retard prosecution. State v. Ralston (Iowa) 116 N. W. 1058. The ground for receiving such evidence is that an inference of defendant's guilt of the crime charged may be drawn therefrom. If so, its tendency is to point out the guilty person. We are of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury.

2. In the sixth paragraph of the charge the court instructed the jury with respect to proof of flight, and that: “If the offense was committed, and prosecutrix charged him therewith, and defendant knew that she so accused him, and, while so knowing, thereupon fled from the vicinity for the purpose of avoiding or retarding prosecution in the case, then such flight is admitted in law as a circumstance against him, and it is to be received as evidence tending to connect him with the commission of the crime charged. In such case this is corroborative evidence within the meaning of the law tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. The credibility, weight, and sufficiency of it as such corroborative evidence is a question solely for your determination in the light of all the evidence in the case.” This instruction is criticised for that (1) it treats evidence of flight alone as furnishing sufficient corroboration, and (2) because it ignores, as is said, the explanation of the defendant. As previously remarked, the theory upon which such evidence is received is that the accused has departed because of his consciousness of guilt, and manifestly the probative force of such an inference is its tendency to show that the accused had committed the particular offense. Its effect then tends...