State v. Humbles

• Decision Date: 07 February 1905
• Citation: 102 N.W. 409,126 Iowa 462
• Parties: STATE v. HUMBLES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

126 Iowa 462

102 N.W. 409

STATE

v.HUMBLES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Feb. 7, 1905.

Appeal from District Court, Monroe County; Robert Sloan, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for the crime of an assault with intent to commit murder. He was convicted of the crime of an assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and from the judgment and sentence imposed appeals. Affirmed.Woodson & Brown and O. C. G. Phillips, for appellant.

Charles W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DEEMER, J.

That the defendant committed the assault charged is practically conceded. His principal defense to the charge was insanity. The alleged errors relied upon for a reversal we shall take up in their order.

It is contended that the court erred in overruling defendant's challenge to a juror named Taunton. The case in this respect falls clearly within the rule announced in State v. Munchrath, 78 Iowa, 268, 43 N. W. 211, and other like cases. Indeed, the showing of prejudice is not so strong here as in those cases.

2. Next it is insisted that the trial court erred in its instructions regarding the testimony introduced to show insanity. The instructions complained of read as follows: “It is not necessary, in order to acquit. that the evidence on the subject of insanity should satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was insane. It is sufficient if, upon a full consideration of all the evidence in the case, and all the facts and circumstances therein, that you are reasonably satisfied thereof. * * * The burden of proof is upon the defendant to show that when the defendant shot at his wife, if he did so, he was insane, and that his act in so doing was the direct result thereof; and he must establish the same to your reasonable satisfaction by a preponderance of the evidence in the case. But if the defendant has established the same by the weight or preponderance of the evidence, then it raises a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, and entitled him to an acquittal; otherwise it will not entitle him to an acquittal.” These instructions, while not in accord with the law in some other jurisdictions, have full support in our cases. State v. Felter, 32 Iowa, 49;State v. Bruce, 48 Iowa, 530, 30 Am. Rep. 403;State v. Novak, 109 Iowa, 717, 79 N. W. 465;State v. Robbins, 109 Iowa, 651, 80 N. W. 1061;State v. Wright, 112 Iowa, 436, 84 N. W. 541;State v. Thiele (Iowa) 94 N. W. 256.

3. Lastly, it is argued that the verdict...