State v. Manning

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtDEEMER
Citation128 N.W. 345,149 Iowa 205
Decision Date16 November 1910
PartiesSTATE v. MANNING.

149 Iowa 205
128 N.W. 345

STATE
v.
MANNING.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 16, 1910.


Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Jesse A. Miller, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for criminal conspiracy. Upon trial to a jury, he was convicted, and from the judgment imposed appeals. Affirmed.

[128 N.W. 345]

Mills & Perry, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


DEEMER, C. J.

The defendant and one John Mitchell were jointly indicted for the crime of conspiracy by securing and procuring the presence of certain female persons in the city of Des Moines, Polk county, Iowa, for purposes of prostitution, adultery, and lewdness, and with the intent to cause the said females to become prostitutes and to

[128 N.W. 346]

commit adultery, fornication, concubinage, the said females being Bertha Lindell and Carrie Sprague, and did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously conspire and confederate together to entice the said females aforesaid, they being heretofore reputed virtuous, to the city of Des Moines by false, fraudulent, and wrongful representations, for false and malicious purposes, to wit, prostitution, adultery, fornication, and lewdness, in the city of Des Moines, Polk county, Iowa. They were separately tried and each convicted. In this case it is contended (1) that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict; (2) that the trial court erred in permitting testimony as to the acts and declarations of defendant's co-conspirator to go to the jury; (3) erred in permitting a letter and envelope to go to the jury; and (4) erred in giving one of its instructions.

1. We shall first take up the ruling on testimony. One, if not both, of these rulings, involves, however, a third question, and that is the sufficiency of the testimony to show a conspiracy. The letter and envelope in which it was inclosed, which the state was permitted to offer in testimony, was proved to have been written and addressed by John Mitchell to one of the girls referred to in the indictment, and the letter reads as follows: “Des Moines, Ia. Oct. 20, 1909. Dear Wife I received your kind and loving letter and was glad to hear from you Kid the reason I did not send you the money I was waiting for an ans Kid you know I love you how could I disappoint you You will get in Des Moines at about 815 Joe and I will be there we will have on white sweaters and cap I thank you very much for the lock of hair I wish I had your picture Now tell your pal I said hello and give this letter to her tell her Joe sent it Wright right back and let me know if you received the money order I am just dying to see your sweet face I am sorry I had you worried any time I say anything sweetheart you can bank on it that I mean it honey you can get anything from me that your heart desires for I love you baby and there isn't another girl that can take your place in my heart Kid I am writing this letter Wed. 20 and it will come over the N. W. R. R. you will get this Thu. evening Well Kid I don't know nothing else to say only that I hope to see your sweet face Sat. Good by from your Dear Husban to his sweet little wife. P. S. excuse bad writing and mispelled words take all mistakes as kisses. S. W. A. K. * * *” This letter was postmarked at Des Moines October 20, 1909, addressed to Carrie Sprague at Jefferson, Iowa, and reached the latter place October 21, 1909. Its receipt by the addressee is shown, and it also fairly appears that it was one of the inducements to lead the girls to come to Des Moines. Defendant contends, however, that these items of evidence should not have been received, because it may not tend in any degree to establish a conspiracy. Conceding this to be true, it was undoubtedly admissible, provided a prima facie case of conspiracy was made out, as showing the means used to induce the person or persons to whom it was addressed to come to Des Moines. With the proper foundation laid, it was permissible to show the acts and conduct of each conspirator in furthering their contemplated ends and purposes. It is also contended that the trial court was in error in permitting any testimony as to the acts, declarations, and conduct of Mitchell, because no proper foundation was laid for the introduction of such testimony. The rule is well understood that acts, declarations, and conduct of an alleged co-conspirator are not admissible in evidence until the state has made out a prima facie case of conspiracy, but we have also said: “The matter of requiring prima facie proof of the conspiracy prior to such admission is a matter largely in the discretion of the court.” State v. Grant, 86 Iowa, 216, 53 N. W. 120. We think the trial court was justified in holding that proper foundation was laid for the introduction of the testimony complained of.

2. The instruction complained of reads as follows: “(7) It is not incumbent upon the state to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Carey, No. 52942
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 11, 1969
    ...750; State v. Cox, 240 Iowa 248, 254, 34 N.W.2d 616, 620; State v. Rowe, 238 Iowa 237, 246, 26 N.W.2d 422, 427; State Page 36 v. Manning, 149 Iowa 205, 210, 128 N.W. 345, In State v. Jensen, 245 Iowa 1363, 1371, 66 N.W.2d 480, 484, we said, 'If he (defendant) wishes the jury to be instructe......
  • State v. Moore, No. 41607.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 12, 1933
    ...against them to prove the conspiracy itself. Concerning this, we said in State v. Manning, 149 Iowa, 205, reading on pages 209 and 210, 128 N. W. 345, 347: “It is true, of course, that neither the nature nor the existence of a conspiracy can be established by the acts or declarations of one......
  • Fisher v. Myers, No. 32601.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...Ice Co., 286 S.W. 38; United States v. Kissel, 31 Sup. Ct. 124, 218 U.S. 601; Musser v. State, 61 N.E. 1, 157 Ind. 423; State v. Manning, 128 N.W. 345, 149 Iowa, 205. (5) The publication complained of in plaintiff's petition was not qualifiedly privileged and none of the appealing defendant......
  • State v. Rowe, No. 46816.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 11, 1947
    ...to do so fairly and correctly. State v. Brooks, 192 Iowa 1107, 186 N.W. 46;State v. Rutledge, 135 Iowa 581, 113 N.W. 461;State v. Manning, 149 Iowa 205, 128 N.W. 345;State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 11 N.W.2d 737. While requested instruction No. 1 may not have been well phrased, in the best fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Carey, No. 52942
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 11, 1969
    ...750; State v. Cox, 240 Iowa 248, 254, 34 N.W.2d 616, 620; State v. Rowe, 238 Iowa 237, 246, 26 N.W.2d 422, 427; State Page 36 v. Manning, 149 Iowa 205, 210, 128 N.W. 345, In State v. Jensen, 245 Iowa 1363, 1371, 66 N.W.2d 480, 484, we said, 'If he (defendant) wishes the jury to be instructe......
  • State v. Moore, No. 41607.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 12, 1933
    ...against them to prove the conspiracy itself. Concerning this, we said in State v. Manning, 149 Iowa, 205, reading on pages 209 and 210, 128 N. W. 345, 347: “It is true, of course, that neither the nature nor the existence of a conspiracy can be established by the acts or declarations of one......
  • Fisher v. Myers, No. 32601.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 14, 1936
    ...Ice Co., 286 S.W. 38; United States v. Kissel, 31 Sup. Ct. 124, 218 U.S. 601; Musser v. State, 61 N.E. 1, 157 Ind. 423; State v. Manning, 128 N.W. 345, 149 Iowa, 205. (5) The publication complained of in plaintiff's petition was not qualifiedly privileged and none of the appealing defendant......
  • State v. Rowe, No. 46816.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 11, 1947
    ...to do so fairly and correctly. State v. Brooks, 192 Iowa 1107, 186 N.W. 46;State v. Rutledge, 135 Iowa 581, 113 N.W. 461;State v. Manning, 149 Iowa 205, 128 N.W. 345;State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 11 N.W.2d 737. While requested instruction No. 1 may not have been well phrased, in the best fo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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