State v. Johnagen

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtSEEVERS
Citation5 N.W. 176,53 Iowa 250
Decision Date07 April 1880
PartiesTHE STATE OF IOWA v. JOHNAGEN.

53 Iowa 250
5 N.W. 176

THE STATE OF IOWA
v.
JOHNAGEN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed April 7, 1880.


Appeal from Boone district court.

Indictment for robbery. Trial, verdict, judgment, and the defendant appeals.

[5 N.W. 176]

Kidder & Crooks, for appellant.

J. F. McJunkin, Attorney General, for the state.


SEEVERS, J.

The robbery was effected by striking the prosecuting witness a violent blow on the head with a club or some other instrument, and, while he was unconscious, taking from his person certain articles of personal property.

The following instruction was given the jury:

“10. The defendants have introduced different witnesses to show that Ericson, the prosecuting witness, soon after the alleged robbery, told them that he did not know who it was that wounded and robbed him; and the state introduced witnesses to show that at the time Ericson made these statements he was suffering much pain from his wounds, and was greatly debilitated, and was partially or temporarily deranged, and that he was greatly frightened and in fear of being injured. And if you find from the evidence that he did so state that he did not know who it was who struck and robbed him, you will then carefully consider all the facts and circumstances as disclosed by the evidence; and if you find that, at the time he made these statements, (if he did make them,) he was suffering great pain, and was partially deranged in mind, and was not fully conscious of what he said, then it would not impair or affect his credibility in any way if he did, under such circumstances, make contradictory statements from his testimony. Or, if you find his mind was partially deranged or impaired, and he was laboring under the imaginary impression that he was in great danger of being injured personally, and of being again robbed, and that, when talking to strangers, or persons in whom he did not have full confidence, he, from policy, told such persons that he did not know who robbed him, then it should not affect or impair his credit as a witness. But, if you find that the prosecuting witness, when in the full possession of his faculties, of his

[5 N.W. 177]

own accord, made statements to such witnesses that he did not know who robbed him, it is a circumstance for you to consider in determining what weight you will give to his testimony.”

Under the evidence and this instruction the jury were authorized to find-- First, that the prosecuting witness stated on several occasions after the robbery, to different...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 21 mars 1908
    ...Mauston, 66 N.W. 803; People v. Board, 52 N.Y. 89; Perry v. Cheboygan, 21 N.W. 333; Board v. Morgan, 65 P. 41; Murphy v. U.S. 14 Otto, 464 (5 N.W. 176); 17 Am. Dec., 118; Alice v. Billing, 2 Cush., 26; Fisher v. Hay, 5 Am. Dec., 626; 8 Cyc., 533; Harding v. County, 7 N.W. 466; Hodge v. Hodg......
1 cases
  • City of Rawlins v. Jungquist
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 21 mars 1908
    ...Mauston, 66 N.W. 803; People v. Board, 52 N.Y. 89; Perry v. Cheboygan, 21 N.W. 333; Board v. Morgan, 65 P. 41; Murphy v. U.S. 14 Otto, 464 (5 N.W. 176); 17 Am. Dec., 118; Alice v. Billing, 2 Cush., 26; Fisher v. Hay, 5 Am. Dec., 626; 8 Cyc., 533; Harding v. County, 7 N.W. 466; Hodge v. Hodg......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT