State v. Jones

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: REED
• Citation: State v. Jones, 70 Iowa 505, 30 N.W. 750 (Iowa 1886)
• Decision Date: 22 December 1886
• Parties: STATE v. JONES.

70 Iowa 505

30 N.W. 750

STATE

v.JONES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

December 22, 1886.

Appeal from district court, Howard county.

The defendant was accused of the crime of disfiguring, committed, as was charged in the indictment, by biting, slitting, and tearing off the nose of one Richard Hughes, with intent to disfigure said Hughes. He was found guilty of the offense by the verdict of a jury, and the court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment in the penitentiary, and from that judgment he appealed.A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

No appearance for the defendant.

REED, J.

One of the grounds of defendant's motion for a new trial was that the plea of “not guilty,” on which he was tried, was entered by the counsel who appeared for him, and that he was not personally present in court when the plea was entered. It is provided by statute (Code, § 4361) that “the plea of guilty can only be put in by the defendant himself in open court.” But there is no special provision with reference to the entry of the plea of “not guilty” except that contained in section 4367, which requires the court to enter that plea when the defendant refuses to answer the indictment. It is a very common practice for counsel to put in the plea for the defendant, and this is often done in his absence, and we think this practice is perfectly proper. No possible prejudice could result to the defendant from it. But, if the practice should be regarded as irregular, we could not disturb the judgment in the present case on this ground, for the defendant had every advantage and privilege on the trial which he would have enjoyed if the plea had been regularly entered; and we have held that we will not reverse the judgment when the trial has been regularly conducted in every respect, even though the plea of “not guilty” had not in fact been put in. State v. Greene, 66 Iowa, 11;S. C. 23 N. W. Rep. 154;State v. Hayes, 67 Iowa, 27;S. C. 24 N. W. Rep. 575.

2. The offense of which the defendant was convicted is defined by section 3857 of the Code as follows: “If any person, with intent to maim or disfigure, cut or maim the tongue, cut out or destroy an eye, cut, slit, or tear off an ear, cut, bite, slit, or mutilate the nose or lips, cut off or disable a limb, or any member of another person, he shall be punished * * *.” The evidence given on the trial warranted the jury in finding that an altercation occurred between the defendant and Hughes at the time in question, in which defendant bit or tore off a portion of Hughes' nose, and that the injury had the effect to disfigure him. There was a conflict in the evidence as to which of the parties was the original aggressor in the...