State v. Holder
| Decision Date | 11 December 1945 |
| Docket Number | 46753. |
| Citation | 20 N.W.2d 909,237 Iowa 72 |
| Parties | STATE v. HOLDER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Yeaman & Yeaman, of Sioux City, for appellant.
John M. Rankin, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Scholz, Asst. Atty Gen., and Edward L. Moran, County Atty., Woodbury County, of Sioux City, for appellee.
In the early morning of February 6, 1945, defendant shot and killed Helen Madison. Both were colored as were the four men who were in the immediate vicinity at the time. The homicide occurred on defendant's premises in Sioux City, Iowa. The witnesses William Moore, George Bruce, and Ben Sanford all roomed there and witness Emanuel Underwood lived in the vicinity.
It is impossible to reconstruct the situation with accuracy of detail but enough may be culled from the testimony to give a general picture. The story begins the evening before when the various persons congregated in defendant's front room where there was a nickelodeon, a stove, two davenports and a chair.
Bruce was there from 6 p. m. until midnight, Sanford came about 7 Underwood between 7:30 and 8, Helen at 8 o'clock or a little later, and Moore about 9 o'clock. Sometime during the evening two young neighbor colored girls were present for awhile. Helen was using vile and indecent language but there was no violence or unfriendliness or evidence of disapproval by anyone. They played the nickelodeon and there was some dancing.
Sanford went to bed about 10 o'clock. Helen and Underwood had a bottle of beer at 11:30 or 12 and she was 'pretty drunk then.' Bruce left about midnight and returned at 4 or 5 o'clock a. m.--about the time Sanford got up preparatory to going to work at 6:30. Helen in the meantime had gone to sleep in the bedroom. Apparently defendant, Moore, and Underwood remained up all night.
About 5 o'clock a. m. Sanford and Bruce had some trivial argument and Helen reappeared on the scene. She was drunk,--'kind of groggy.' She wanted to play the nickelodeon and dance. Defendant said it was too late, she was closing, 'everybody out, she wanted to go to bed.' An altercation ensued and the two women got into a scuffle. Helen produced a butcher knife but in the scuffle defendant disarmed her without assistance from the men present. No one seems to have been paying much attention to what was going on, at least no one interfered, except that Underwood at some stage stepped between the women and tried to stop the fight. He says they quieted down for about an hour. There was a time during the scuffle both women were down on the davenport. The evidence indicates this first struggle was not long but was resumed later. Defendant asked someone to call the police but no such call was made. She also asked Helen to leave.
Defendant asked Moore or someone to take Helen out. Finally Moore did open the door at Underwood's request and Underwood took her out and went with her. Helen was again using vile language. Moore testified that when he opened the door she threatened to kill him and pulled something out of her bosom. He did not know what it was or did not tell if he knew. The defense argues it was a knife but there is no testimony to that effect.
What occurred outside is not too clear. Underwood was trying to restrain Helen from going back into the house and to induce her to go home. As he was taking her out she tried to break the glass in the door with her elbow. Defendant shut the door and locked it behind them. Underwood, fearful of arrest if the 'squad car' should appear, released Helen some distance from the house upon her promise to go home. Instead she picked up a club, went back on the porch and smashed the glass in the front door.
How long Helen and Underwood were outside before this happened is variously estimated at from 6 to 7 minutes to 15 or 20 minutes. Nothing particular was happening in the house. Defendant stood by the stove except for one trip into the bedroom shortly before the crash. The state argues she must have procured the gun at that time. When the window glass was smashed she stepped over to the door, drew a revolver and fired one shot through the curtain over the opening. None of the witnesses had before that noticed she had a gun. None noticed where she had had it concealed.
Almost immediately the front door mysteriously came open. Defendant's counsel infer it was pushed open from the outside, the state argues that defendant must have unlocked and opened it. No one clearly explains how it all happened. The women met in the doorway or on the porch just outside and one witness says Helen struck defendant with a club and knocked her to her knees. No other witness so testifies. Underwood, who was outside, says Helen ran into defendant and knocked her off the porch. He says as defendant came out he 'hollered 'don't' shoot me" and hid behind a car. Apparently he at once started to leave the scene. 'I was going across the street and when I gets across the street I heard a shot and when the third shot (occurred) I was up by the water pump.' He also testifies he saw no knife in Helen's possession. 'If she had a knife she would hit me, try to make me turn her loose.'
All the witnesses agree that two shots were fired while both women were outside the house. Defendant came back into the house, announced she had shot Henen and proceeded to call the police. No one went out to see whether Helen needed attention or assistance.
Bruce says he was in a hurry to get away and immediately went out the front door. Sanford stayed in the house 10 or 15 minutes after the shooting and saw the body as he went to work. 'I just looked at her, I didn't stop.'
The body was lying in the snow outside or partly on the walk, 3 or 4 feet from the steps and 10 or 12 feet from the door. A knife and an oak chair rocker were lying beside her.
The body showed three bullet wounds. One was in the right shoulder, the other two were in the skull, one along the central forehead at about the hair line and one within the eyebrow on the right side. The doctors say either of these last two would have caused death. The coroner described the shoulder wound and expressed the opinion that Helen Madison, after receiving it, could not have held the club and raised it at all. Dr. Starry, who performed an autopsy, expressed a similar opinion but admitted she could have lifted her left hand very readily.
We have pieced out the story from the fragmentary testimony of the various witnesses. They gave somewhat varying estimates of distances and times, and some told details omitted by others, but there was no fundamental contradiction. Defendant did not testify and the only testimony offered in her behalf was a stipulation to the effect that Helen was under sentence for the crime of conspiracy to commit larceny.
The jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree and sentence was pronounced accordingly. Motion to withdraw the charge of second degree murder and later motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict and for new trial were overruled. The several contentions made on appeal will be noted as we proceed.
I. The case came on for trial, pursuant to assignment, before Judge Browning, judge of the Woodbury district court. The state, by the county attorney, made an application for transfer to another judge of the district, alleging that Judge Browning had admitted prejudice 'as far as the law in this case is concerned.' Defendant made resistance but the application was sustained and the case was sent over to Judge Forsling, another judge of the district.
Thereupon defendant made application for transfer to another judge, alleging prejudice against defendant and her attorney on the part of Judge Forsling. The state resisted this and it was denied, the judge disclaiming any acquaintance with defendant, denying ever having heard of the case, and stating that he thought he and defendant's attorney were the best of friends.
These rulings are assigned as errors. The authorities cited in support of the assignment relate to change of venue and not to change from one judge to another in the same venue. They are not very presuasive for that reason. Obviously the prejudice, if any, resulting from an erroneous ruling would be quite different in the two cases.
We do not find any Iowa statute that seems clearly decisive of the contention here. The criminal code provides that defendant may petition for change of place of trial on the ground that he 'cannot receive a fair and impartial trial owing to the prejudice of the judge.' Sections 13810 and 13811, Iowa Code, 1939. The state's right to petition for such change is limited to the one ground of community excitement or prejudice. Section 13813, Iowa Code, 1939. In any case 'the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, must, when fully advised, decide the matter of the petition according to the very right of it.' Section 13818, Iowa Code, 1939.
We have a general statute disqualifying a judge 'in any case wherein he is a party or interested, or where he is related to either party by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth degree, or where he has been attorney for either party in the action or proceeding.' Section 10818, Iowa Code, 1939. Our Rules of Civil Procedure permit a transfer to another judge, without a change of venue, where the objection applies only to a judge. Rule 171, superseding section 11417, Iowa Code, 1939.
None of these provisions is applicable here. Appellant did not ask for a change of venue under code sections 13810 and 13811. Had she done so, it is clear from the statement of Judge Forsling that it should have been denied in the exercise of a sound discretion under code section 13818. By the same token...
To continue reading
Request your trial