State v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 02 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 31777.,31777.
• Citation: 166 N.W. 1046,183 Iowa 344
• Parties: STATE v. LAWSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

183 Iowa 344

166 N.W. 1046

STATE

v.LAWSON.

No. 31777.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 2, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Chas. Hutchinson, Judge.

This is a prosecution for adultery, the prosecuting witness being the injured husband. There was a verdict of guilty, and the defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.J. D. Laws, of Des Moines, for appellant.

H. M. Havner, Atty. Gen., F. C. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ward C. Henry, Co. Atty., of Des Moines, for the State.

EVANS, J.

[1] The defendant is an unmarried man. The indictment charged him with adultery committed with Susan Ruby, the wife of Jacob Ruby. His plea was not guilty. The principal witness for the state was Susan Ruby. It is earnestly contended that there was no corroboration, and that therefore the verdict is without support in the evidence. The circumstances which surrounded the parties as they appear in evidence furnish sufficient corroboration to satisfy the requirements of the statute. That being so, we cannot hold that the verdict is without support in the evidence.

II. The state examined the prosecuting witness Jacob Ruby. On cross-examination the following occurred:

“Q. I will put this question, ‘Did you not state to John Monday in the middle of October last, at his house in Highland Park, in this city, that you would give $50 if he would swear that he caught your wife, Susan Ruby and Edward Lawson at what is known as the old Nigger House up there in Highland Park? (Objected to as not cross-examination, sustained, and excepted to. State further objects to this line of questioning. Counsel knows it is absolutely improper.)

Court: Yes, Mr. Laws, we do not want any more along that line. If you have evidence to that effect, you have a right to show it when your turn comes, and they can deny it when they want to by this man. But you have no right to bring it in now, Mr. Laws.

Mr. Laws: The object, if the court please--

The Court: I do not care for any reason. If you have any further questions, ask them.

Mr. Laws: It is on the ground of impeachment.

Court: That is not ground for impeachment. He has not made any statement along that line. You cannot impeach a man for something he has not said.

Mr. Laws: It is to lay the foundation and prove he did say it when the time comes is the object.

Court: You cannot lay it on cross-examination.”

[2] The foregoing is the basis of one of the errors relied on for reversal. It is urged that the court erred in refusing...