State v. Huss
| Decision Date | 21 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | 40221 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. JULIUS HUSS, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--MILES W. NEWBY, Judge.
The defendant was charged with the crime of larceny of certain poultry. He was convicted by a jury, and sentenced to serve an indeterminate sentence in the state reformatory. He appeals.
Reversed.
Yeaman & Yeaman, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and Ralph C. Prichard and H. R Kenaston, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
I.
Appellant contends that the corpus delicti was not proven. It is unnecessary that we set out the evidence of the State. It was sufficient, however, to establish the fact that the chickens in question were stolen from the premises of the witness Haulsworth at the time and place charged in the indictment, and therefore the corpus delicti was established.
II. One Brant was jointly indicted with the appellant. The appellant had a separate trial, and Brant was a witness for the appellant. On cross-examination by the county attorney, the following took place:
"Q. You sold a lot of chickens during the spring, didn't you, Lawrence? A. Yes, I sold some. Q. You sold chickens at least fourteen times in the town of Anthon, didn't you, last spring? (Mr. Yeaman: Objected to as not cross-examination. The Court: He may answer that. To which ruling the defendant duly excepts. A. I don't know just how many times. Q. Is that about correct? A. No, I don't think that many. Q. You sold chickens at Correctionville several times, didn't you? A. No, I never sold any in Correctionville. Q. Were you ever with the defendant, Julius Huss, when he sold chickens at Correctionville? A. No, sir. Q. Then, if he so stated to the sheriff, you would think he was mistaken, would you? Q. You sold chickens at Oto, also, didn't you, in the spring? A. Yes, sir. Q. How many times did you sell them there, Lawrence? A. I believe twice. Q. How many times did you sell chickens in Sioux City? A. I don't know. Q. You don't know how many times? So many times you wouldn't remember,--isn't that a fact? A. No. Q. Did you ever sell any at Lawton? A. No. Q. You tried to sell them there, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Where did you get all these chickens? A. From my mother. Q. How many did she have? A. I don't know. Q. She held them all over during the winter,-- didn't sell any for fries the year previous? A. No. Q. Saved them all the winter and spring of 1929? "
The objection to this line of testimony that it was not proper cross-examination should have been sustained. There was nothing in the direct examination of the witness that rendered such cross-examination proper. The State does not attempt to sustain the rulings of the trial court in this matter except on the theory that a wide discretion is allowed in the cross-examination of a witness, and that, if error was committed, it was without prejudice.
The State relies upon State v. Graham, 203 Iowa 532, 211 N.W. 244. Said case discloses an entirely different situation. In the case at bar, it is to be remembered that Brant was a co-indictee with the appellant. The contention of the State was that the appellant and the witness Brant stole the chickens in question together and disposed of them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson Bros. & Johnson Co. v. Sioux Monument Co.
... ... The ... appellant alleged in its petition that it is a corporation ... duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, ... and engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling ... monuments and memorial work. Appellant alleges that between ... ...
- Anderson Bros. & Johnson Co. v. Sioux Monument Co.
- State v. Huss