State v. Hogan

• Decision Date: 11 January 1910
• Citation: 145 Iowa 352,124 N.W. 178
• Parties: STATE v. HOGAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

145 Iowa 352

124 N.W. 178

STATE

v.HOGAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 11, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Jones County; W. N. Treichler, Judge.

This is a prosecution for rape. There was a verdict of guilty, and a judgment imposing punishment. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.Welch & Welch, for appellant.

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

EVANS, J.

The defendant was indicted on the charge of rape, alleged to have been committed on August 25, 1907, upon one Emma Fahrni, a deaf-mute.

The defendant's first complaint of error is that the jurors who sat upon the case were disqualified by previous opinion. The abstract sets forth the examination of 11 of the jurors. The examinations of some of them show no opinion whatever. Other jurors stated in their examination that they had read about the case in the papers and had formed opinions based upon what they had read. Whether any juror disclosed a state of mind that would disqualify him, however, is a question which does not arise in any way in the record, except in the argument of counsel. No objection whatever was made to any juror that was selected, nor does it appear from the record that any peremptory challenges were exercised on behalf of the defendant. In such a state of the record, it is idle to discuss the question. The state of the record indicates that defendant was satisfied with the jurors at the time they were selected, and his dissatisfaction arose only after an adverse verdict.

2. The defendant complains of the rulings of the court in admitting certain testimony relating to the conduct of one Rohn shortly before the commission of the alleged offense by the defendant. The testimony on behalf of the state tended strongly to show concerted action between Rohn and one Hausler and the defendant. The same offense was committed by each one of them in succession in a barn at the home of the defendant, and in the successive order above named. They were together at the barn shortly before the offense was committed by Rohn, and were together at the time it was committed by the defendant, and for some hours thereafter. Rohn procured the presence of the prosecuting witness at the barn. It is claimed on behalf of defendant that Rohn's offense was entirely distinct and separate, and that it was committed before that of the defendant, and that it was therefore prejudicial to permit evidence of it. Prior to the trial of defendant, Rohn had been convicted of the offense, and such conviction had been affirmed here. State v. Rohn, 119 N. W. 88. It appears also from the evidence on behalf of the state that the offense was again committed by the defendant some hours later in the day at another place not far away. The state introduced its evidence concerning both of the alleged acts on the part of the defendant, and at the close of its evidence elected to rely upon the last. It is urged by defendant's counsel that the offense of Rohn was thereby still further separated from the act for which the defendant was convicted. If it were true that the act of Rohn were separate and independent from that of defendant, then the contention of defendant as to its inadmissibility as evidence would be good. But, under the evidence on behalf of the state, the act on the part of Rohn was so connected and related to the acts of the defendant that it was admissible as one of the surrounding circumstances of the case. Being admissible as such circumstance, the fact that it involved the commission of another crime did not render it inadmissible. State v. O'Connell, 123 N. W. 201. There was no error in permitting this testimony.

3. The defendant contends that the prosecuting witness was not sufficiently corroborated. There is corroboration to be found in the testimony of the defendant himself, notwithstanding his denial of guilt. His presence at the place was admitted by him as to each of the alleged acts. The testimony of De Witt was directly corroborative. He saw the defendant with the prosecuting witness, and reported the matter at once to the public officers. The testimony of the sheriff who arrested the defendant while in company with the prosecuting witness was also corroborative. The conversation of the defendant as detailed by the witness Franklin was itself corroborative. The testimony here referred to was not only corroborative, but it was practically conclusive as to the connection of the defendant with the alleged offense. The undisputed facts disclosed in the evidence are so loathsome and depraved that ordinary vice seems virtuous by comparison.

4. The examination of the prosecutrix as a witness on the trial, as well as some other testimony, tended strongly to show that she was mentally undeveloped and was childish in her comprehension. The mother of the defendant, Mrs. Hogan, was a witness in his behalf. She testified to having once met the prosecutrix, and she...