State v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 15 December 1897
• Citation: 73 N.W. 467,103 Iowa 702
• Parties: STATE v. JACKSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

103 Iowa 702

73 N.W. 467

STATE

v.JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1897.

Appeal from district court, Pottawattamie county; Walter I. Smith, Judge.

Indictment for murder of the first degree. Verdict of guilty, and a judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed. Affirmed.Sims & Bainbridge and D. B. Bailey, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Jesse A. Miller, for the State.

GRANGER, J.

1. The defendant, Jackson, was indicted, jointly with one Richard Wallace, for the murder of Richard Baker, a colored man, commonly known as Texas Baker, on the night of November 4, or early morning of November 5, 1895, at Council Bluffs, Iowa. Some facts are without dispute. One John Webster, the defendant, and Baker, with many others, were in front of the Metropolitan Saloon, on Broadway street, in said city, when an altercation arose between Webster and Baker because Webster had taken a cigar from Baker's mouth. Baker left the crowd, and crossed the street, and soon returned; and, as he had crossed the motor track that ran along the street, he was met by Jackson, who either knocked or pushed him down, so that he lay on his back, with his head between the rails of the motor track, and, while in this position, he was struck by Webster with a club in the face and on the head two or three times, from which wound Baker died the following morning. Some facts, about which there is a dispute, are these, as claimed by the state: During the altercation over the cigar, Baker put his hand on his hip, as if to take from his pocket a weapon, upon which Webster said, “Look out, boys! He is going to shoot,” and started for the saloon door, when Jackson took him by the arm, and said, “Hold on! I'll see you through with it.” Baker was then returning from across the street, where he had picked up a couple of bricks, and Jackson and Webster left the sidewalk, and met Baker just as he had crossed the motor track. When within a few feet of Baker, Jackson said to Webster, “Let him come; I will stop him,” or “Let him come; I will fix him.” That Jackson stepped in front of Webster, and knocked Baker down with his fists. That Baker fell “like a log,” his head striking the pavement first, after which he did not speak or move. That Jackson then rushed to his head, and kicked him on the head or face. That then Webster came up, and struck the blows with the club, while Jackson stood within four or five feet of him. That, after Webster had struck the blows, Jackson grabbed hold of him, and said, “Come on; let's get out of here.” That they left together, and, when a short distance away, Jackson said, “I am going back, to clear myself with the people.” That he soon joined Webster again on a bridge, about a block from the scene, and they went on together, and Jackson tried to have Webster throw the club into the creek. That it was afterwards thrown into an alley, and there found, covered with hair and blood. That, as they proceeded to their homes, Jackson put his finger to Webster's face, and said “I never hit a prettier lick in my life.” Appellant's version of the disputed facts is that they did not occur as stated; that Webster made no such remark about shooting, and that Jackson did not take him by the arm and say, “Hold on! I'll see you through;” that he did not advance towards Baker with Webster, but alone, and only pushed Baker down when he drew the brick to strike and threatened to kill him; that he did not kick Baker, but that the kicking was done by one Roper; that, when he saw Webster striking Baker with the club, he rushed between Baker and Webster, and told Webster to stop, that he was killing him; and that he (Jackson) caught the third blow on his own leg, to save Baker. The other facts as claimed by appellant are also denied.

2. There is a strenuous contention that the verdict of manslaughter had not support in the evidence. We do not think it is contended that the death resulted from the blow struck by Jackson, but rather from the blows given by Webster with the club. The testimony of the physician who examined Baker before and after death is to the effect that death resulted from hemorrhage. The testimony would clearly sustain a finding that Baker was stunned, and temporarily helpless, from the blow given by Jackson, not, however, saying but that the testimony in that respect is in conflict. The argument deals with the matter of intent or motive on the part of Jackson to do the act. Neither motive nor intent is necessarily an element of the crime of manslaughter. It is true that, under the facts of this case, the fatal blows being given by Webster, there must have been the intention to do an unlawful act, and that the act resulted in the homicide. The intent to do the unlawful act has a clear support in the evidence if some of the facts urged by the state are established. If it is true that when Webster and Baker engaged in the quarrel of words, and Webster, apprehending that Baker was going to shoot, sought safety by retreating from him,--which was clearly the proper course to pursue,--Jackson intercepted him with the remark, “Hold on! I'll see you through,” and then went into an affray with Baker and Webster, the intent to do the unlawful act is clearly manifest. That they did go into the affray is not a disputed fact, and we think a finding that they went into it under such circumstances has support in the evidence, notwithstanding the conflict. It is true that the movements were not seen alike by all the witnesses, and this variance in the testimony is urged as discrediting the evidence to the effect that Webster and Jackson acted understandingly in their movements, and in what they did. Particular stress is placed on the fact that some of the witnesses for the state say that, when Webster came to Baker, he came from the west, instead of from beside Jackson, or near him, where some of the witnesses placed him. On the question of intent the variance is not material. That Webster was close by when Jackson struck the blow, intending to aid in an affray, is not to be doubted; nor is it to be seriously doubted that Jackson designed to assist Webster in an encounter against Baker if he (Baker) should attack him. These facts, aided by the other, which the jury...