State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 14 November 1911 |
| Citation | 133 N.W. 115,152 Iowa 675 |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHNSON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Lawrence De Graff, Judge.
Indictment for rape. Trial to a jury, verdict of an assault with intent to commit rape, and defendant appeals. Reversed.T. L. Sellers, for appellant.
George Cosson, Atty. Gen., and John Fletcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The case as made for the state is practically as follows: Defendant is a colored man, about 33 years of age, and prosecutrix is a colored woman, eight years older than defendant. Defendant has served at least one term in the penitentiary and many terms in county or city jails. Prosecutrix is a woman of bad moral character and undoubtedly a prostitute. At the time in question, prosecutrix was living with her sister in South Des Moines, and defendant had just been released from jail. The house in which prosecutrix lived had but two rooms; the back one being a kitchen and bedroom combined, and the front a sort of sitting room. Prosecutrix claims that at the time charged in the indictment she was looking over some samples of combs, which a travelingsalesman was showing her in the front room, when, hearing a noise at the back door, she went into the kitchen, was there met by the defendant, who had gained admittance into the house by cutting the wire netting from a screen door, and was then and there assaulted by the defendant, choked and thrown upon the bed, and there defiled by him. She also claims that defendant held in his hand an open knife, and that he threatened to kill her if she did not lie still and submit to his embraces. Her story is to some extent corroborated by the fact that she had some bruises upon her face, and that she almost immediately made complaint to an officer, who had been called to the scene by prosecutrix's sister, although the nature of the complaint--that is, as to whether or not it was of a simple assault, of an assault to do great bodily injury, or of an attempted rape--is not clear from the testimony. On the other hand, there is a great deal of testimony contradictory of that adduced by the state, and considerable conflict in the testimony offered by the state. The jury was perfectly justified in returning a verdict of not guilty of rape; but there was enough testimony, if believed by the jury, to warrant the verdict returned. Many complaints are made of rulings made by the trial court in admitting and rejecting testimony. Most of these are without merit, however, and, in view of the final conclusion reached, it will not be necessary to notice many of these rulings.
[1] We are disposed to think the trial court was in error in denying to defendant the right to show that the complaint, made by the prosecutrix and by her sister, who says she saw the defendant in the act of sexual intercourse with prosecutrix, was of an assault with intent to murder, and not of an assault with intent to rape, or of rape itself. We are speaking now of an information filed by either the prosecuting witness or her sister. Surely this testimony would tend to show that the offense which these witnesses then believed to have been committed was not rape, or an assault with intent to commit rape, but either a simple assault, or an assault with intent to do bodily harm, or to kill. In this connection, the trial court made the following remark, which indicates what we are constrained to hold an erroneous view of the law: “I think it is wholly immaterial what this witness may have advised her sister or any one else to do in this case.”
[2] Again, defendant endeavored to show that Mary Manning, prosecutrix's sister, was angry with defendant because of his relations with prosecutrix, and had a motive in testifying against him. This testimony was rejected by the trial court, and as we think improperly.
[3] 2. The most serious complaints, however, are of the court's refusal to give the following instructions asked by defendant:
“(3) Evidence, relating to the prior conviction of a felony, is not to be considered by you as evidence tending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial