State v. Maupin
| Decision Date | 03 April 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 35195.,35195. |
| Citation | 196 Iowa 904,192 N.W. 828 |
| Parties | STATE v. MAUPIN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Lester L. Thompson, Judge.
The defendant was indicted charged with murder in the first degree, and tried and convicted of the crime of murder of Joe Hayes by striking him upon the head with a wooden club. The jury fixed the death penalty, and judgment was entered in conformity with the verdict. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Chas. P. Howard and Geo. H. Woodson, both of Des Moines, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., Maxwell O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Arthur G. Rippey, Co. Atty., of Des Moines, for the State.
That defendant killed Joe Hayes there is no doubt. Defendant offered no testimony to in any way contradict the evidence offered by the state of what occurred at the scene of the murder on the night of January 20, 1922. Also defendant made a confession of the commission of the crime in which he related the facts of the crime substantially as shown by the other testimony offered by the state. It is permissible, under the record to make a statement of the salient facts of the crime as follows:
The scene of the crime was at Carney, where the Saylor mines are located, about eight miles north of the city of Des Moines, in Polk county, Iowa. There are about 80 small houses for miners to live in in Carney. Hayes' occupation was check weighman at the mines, employed and paid by the miners' union. He lived at the mining camp and had a wife and four children. The killing occurred on the night of January 20, 1922. Defendant and Hayes both belonged to the local miners' union. The local union had a meeting on the evening of January 20th in the union hall at the camp, and Hayes and the defendant were both present at the meeting. During the meeting George Fletcher, who was treasurer of the local union, paid Hayes for his services as check weighman, by giving Hayes an envelope containing $80.92, the money consisting of three $20 bills, two $10 bills, a 50–cent piece, a quarter, a dime, a nickel, and two pennies, and Hayes signed a voucher receipting for the payment of the money. The payment of money was made by Fletcher to Hayes on the platform in the hall, and defendant saw the transaction. Hayes opened the envelope that was handed to him by Fletcher and counted the money at the time he received it and replaced the money in the envelope and put the envelope in his pocket. After the meeting, Hayes left the hall in company with Fred Brown, Joe Tollari, and Wesley Dinrell and started to his home. Defendant followed Hayes down the stairs from the union hall.
Defendant is a negro. At the time of the trial he was about 24 years old. He was born in Missouri and moved to Iowa about 10 or 11 years ago and started to work at what was then known as Saylor mine No. 3 at Carney. He performed work there, doing what was called “trapping” in the mine, greased machinery, dug coal, and worked as a mule driver. He enlisted in the army of the World War and served about two years in a labor battalion, and was honorably discharged in July, 1919. On his return from the army he stayed with his parents at their home at the Carney mines, and in a few days secured work in Saylor mine No. 2 as a mule driver. He was married in January, 1920. He followed his employment steadily until January 6, 1922, when he received a minor injury to his finger and laid off from his work. His work consisted of driving a mule hitched to a small car through the entrance of the mine from various rooms where coal was being dug in the mine. There are about 80 houses in Carney, small houses for miners to live in, and these houses are numbered. The defendant at that time was living in house No. 54. His mother–in–law lived in Carney in house No. 34. These two houses were on the same street. Defendant was not working on January 20, 1922, the day Hayes was killed, and had not been working since January 6th on account of the injury to his finger. On January 20th defendant had supper at his home about 5 o'clock, and after supper went to the pool hall, which is in the same building where the union meeting was held which was attended by defendant and Hayes and others, on the night of January 20th, and his wife went over to her mother's, who lived at cottage No. 34. Later the defendant attended the meeting of the local union in the hall, and after the meeting was over followed Hayes downstairs from the union hall and went to his home, then down by the mine shaft. At the mine shaft what are called “paddles” were kept. These are heavy wooden paddles used to hold the cage lock back so that a mine car can be taken off the cage. One of these paddles or clubs was found bloodstained near the spot where Hayes was struck down. There was a light snow, and the ground showed the marks in the snow where Hayes had been assaulted, the snow being bloodstained, and the footprints showing plainly at this spot. The defendant, after getting the club, went to the home of Hayes, and at a spot about 35 or 40 feet from the back door of the Hayes cottage waited for Hayes, standing beside a clothesline pole. Hayes parted from his companions, who had left the hall with him, before reaching his home, and when he reached the clothesline pole in his back yard the defendant struck him over the head, felling him to the ground, and then robbed him of the envelope containing the money he had received at the Union hall. This occurred a little after 9 o'clock the evening of January 20, 1922. Mrs. Hayes heard a noise at her back door, and on opening the door her husband fell into her arms, and she called in some of the neighbors. Hayes never regained consciousness, and died from cerebral hemorrhage, resulting from the wound on his head which caused a fracture of the skull, about two days later. After striking Hayes down and taking the envelope containing the $80.92 from his pocket, defendant fled from the scene of the crime to the house of his mother–in–law and after remaining there a short time, returned with his wife, who was at her mother's, to his home.
Defendant did not testify in his own behalf. Besides his plea of not guilty, he entered a special plea of insanity.
Defendant assigns errors on which he relies for reversal, which we will consider and pass upon.
[1] I. Defendant moved to quash the indictment on the ground that the grand jury which found the indictment against defendant “was not lawfully listed and was unlawfully drawn and unlawfully impaneled,” and therefore had no lawful authority to return the indictment. In the same motion defendant also moved for his discharge on the ground that the panel of the trial jury from which a jury was afterwards selected in the defendant's case “was unlawfully listed and drawn.” Said motion or motions were overruled, and plaintiff assigns as error such ruling. We have gone to the transcript of the case and examined it, and it does not disclose any showing whatever of the matters complained of. The record is entirely silent respecting the manner of obtaining the list of grand jurors and trial jurors, and the drawing and impaneling of the grand jury, and also afterwards the drawing and impaneling of the trial jury. No evidence was offered touching these matters complained of in defendant's argument. Under this situation we cannot consider this assignment further than to say that it will be presumed on this appeal, nothing appearing to the contrary, that the jury lists were properly made, and that the grand jury and trial jury were properly drawn and impaneled.
[2][3] After the trial jury had been impaneled and sworn defendant moved for a continuance of the case for the reason that he had not had sufficient time and opportunity to prepare for trial, and that Charles P. Howard, attorney, who had been appointed by the court to defend him, on account of other business, had not had time to prepare for trial of this case; also that George H. Woodson, his attorney, was in ill health and unable on that account to make a proper defense for him. The motion was overruled, which defendant assigns as error. We think the assignment is without merit. We have so often said that authorities need not be cited in support thereof, in substance, that an application for continuance is addressed peculiarly to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be interfered with on appeal unless it clearly appear that the trial court has abused his discretion and an injustice resulted therefrom. Attorney Woodson, as shown by affidavits, was not in good health, and doubtless the trial of the case was severe on him for that reason. However, it is evident from the record that the defendant did not suffer on account thereof. Defendant was given an able defense. We think the court did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion.
[4] II. Defendant complains of misconduct of the county attorney in closing argument to the jury. We have examined the record carefully with respect to this assignment, and find that the argument complained of was fairly responsive to the argument made by counsel for defendant. Counsel for defendant, in addressing the jury, went somewhat wide of the record, and the county attorney only countered to such argument. Both arguments were within the hearing of the trial court, and we think the court did not err in refusing a new trial on such ground.
[5] III. Defendant complains that the court erred in admitting in evidence the written confession of defendant without allowing defendant's counsel opportunity to first examine the witnesses who were present when the confession was made as to the circumstances under which the confession was made. We have examined the transcript with...
To continue reading
Request your trial