State v. Martin
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | WEAVER |
| Citation | 125 Iowa 715,101 N.W. 637 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1904 |
| Parties | STATE v. MARTIN. |
125 Iowa 715
101 N.W. 637
STATE
v.
MARTIN.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Dec. 13, 1904.
Appeal from District Court, Winneshiek County; A. N. Hobson, Judge.
Indictment for indecent exposure. Verdict and judgment of guilty, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
[101 N.W. 637]
E. W. Cutting and F. S. Burling, for appellant.
C. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and L. De Graff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
WEAVER, J.
The indictment charges that defendant did “unlawfully, willfully, and designedly make an open, indecent exposure of his person in a public place, to wit, a public highway in Winneshiek county, in the state of Iowa, in the presence of one Agnes Haugen, a female then and there being, the said defendant Richard Martin and Agnes Haugen not being married to each other, and each of them being unmarried.” By exception to the instructions given to the jury, and by motion in arrest of judgment, the appellant attacked the sufficiency of the indictment, and the question thus raised is the principal one upon which a reversal is demanded.
It is said that the indictment does not charge that any one saw the indecent exhibition, or that it was made with the intent that any one should see it, or that the exposure was made under circumstances when it was possible that any one should see it, or that it was in public, or without the consent of the woman named. It is also said that the allegations may be literally true, and yet the appellant and the woman may have been miles apart, and may have been ignorant of one another's presence upon the public road; that defendant may have been entirely alone, or the alleged exhibition may have been in the darkness of night and without evil intent. It is to be conceded that, if this indictment is to be construed with all the technical strictness which mark the earlier authorities, some of the criticisms made upon it might be held well founded. But the technical exactness of the common law, which had its origin at a time when the accused could not be heard by counsel or testify as a witness in his own behalf, has been to a great extent removed by statutory provisions, and by the general tendency of the courts to disregard objections which go to matters of mere form and not of substantial right. Our statute,
[101 N.W. 638]
so far as it is here applicable, provides that the indictment shall be held sufficient if the act charged is “stated in ordinary and concise language with such certainty and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended and the court to pronounce judgment according to law upon conviction.” Code, § 5289. It also provides...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ricketts v. State, No. 167
...and place that, as a reasonable man, he knows or should know his act will be open to the observation of others. State v. Martin (Iowa) (125 Iowa 715), 101 N.W. 637; Peyton v. District of Columbia, 100 A.2d 36, By thus labeling indecent exposure a general intent crime, the types of offenses ......
-
State v. Gardner, Nos. 30032
...Potter, 28 Iowa, 554;State v. McKinney, 130 Iowa, 370, 106 N. W. 931;State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 607, 608;State v. Martin, 125 Iowa, 715, 101 N. W. 637;State v. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E. 747, 21 Am. St. Rep. 790;State v. Bauguess, 106 Iowa, 107, 76 N. W. 508;State v. Ashpole, 127 Iowa,......
-
Wisneski v. State, No. 76, Sept. Term, 2006.
...921 A.2d 284 Id. at 209. Therefore, probability of being seen, in addition to actual observation, was sufficient. In State v. Martin, 125 Iowa 715, 101 N.W. 637 (1904), the defendant also was convicted of indecent exposure under a state statute, which he challenged on the ground that his ex......
-
Dill v. State, No. 495
...a time and place that, as a reasonable man, he knows or should know his act will be open to the observation of others. State v. Martin, 125 Iowa 715, 101 N.W. 637; Peyton v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 100 A.2d 36, 37.' The Statutory Crime of Indecent Exposure Indecent exposure was ......
-
Ricketts v. State, No. 167
...and place that, as a reasonable man, he knows or should know his act will be open to the observation of others. State v. Martin (Iowa) (125 Iowa 715), 101 N.W. 637; Peyton v. District of Columbia, 100 A.2d 36, By thus labeling indecent exposure a general intent crime, the types of offenses ......
-
State v. Gardner, Nos. 30032
...Potter, 28 Iowa, 554;State v. McKinney, 130 Iowa, 370, 106 N. W. 931;State v. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 607, 608;State v. Martin, 125 Iowa, 715, 101 N. W. 637;State v. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 102, 23 N. E. 747, 21 Am. St. Rep. 790;State v. Bauguess, 106 Iowa, 107, 76 N. W. 508;State v. Ashpole, 127 Iowa,......
-
Wisneski v. State, No. 76, Sept. Term, 2006.
...921 A.2d 284 Id. at 209. Therefore, probability of being seen, in addition to actual observation, was sufficient. In State v. Martin, 125 Iowa 715, 101 N.W. 637 (1904), the defendant also was convicted of indecent exposure under a state statute, which he challenged on the ground that his ex......
-
Dill v. State, No. 495
...a time and place that, as a reasonable man, he knows or should know his act will be open to the observation of others. State v. Martin, 125 Iowa 715, 101 N.W. 637; Peyton v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 100 A.2d 36, 37.' The Statutory Crime of Indecent Exposure Indecent exposure was ......