State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 17 December 1885 |
| Citation | 26 N.W. 44,68 Iowa 116 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. MITCHELL ET AL |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Fayette District Court.
THE defendant were indicted for the crime of rape upon one Mary Stranahan. Verdict was rendered against them, and each was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. They appeal to this court.
Judgment reversed, as to the defendant Lockard and affirmed as to the defendant Mitchell.
Ainsworth & Hobson and D. W. Clements, for appellants.
A. J Baker, Attorney-general, for the State.
I.
The undisputed evidence shows that in November, 1882, the complainant and defendants attended a dance at a private house near Wadena, a mile or more from the complainant's home in Fayette county. She started home at four or five o'clock in the morning, riding in a wagon, at first with five others, but some of these were left by the way before reaching Stranahan's. The wagon had no seats, and the members of the company sat on straw in the bottom of the box. The alleged rape, if committed, was committed by the defendant Mitchell on the way to the complainant's home in the wagon. At least three of the members of the company had left. When the complainant reached home there appears to have been but one person in the wagon with her. Three witnesses so testify, and neither the complainant nor any one else testified to the contrary. The complainant had been drinking some whisky on the way, but there is no direct evidence tending to show that she was under the influence of liquor. She was evidently under some excitement when she reached home. She got out of the wagon, went inside the front yard, sat down and commenced groaning. She did not appear, however, to have sustained any serious injury. Her parents heard the wagon arrive, and afterwards heard the complainant's groans. They were greatly alarmed, and went out as soon as possible. They both testify, in substance, that there was but one person with their daughter, and that that person was not the defendant Mitchell. But the undisputed evidence shows that if any one had sexual intercourse with the complainant it was Mitchell, and no one else. He testified that he was the one who drove home with complainant, and the one whom her parents saw with her when she arrived. What motive he could have had for committing perjury by swearing that he was the person who drove home with her if he was not the person it is impossible to conceive. The fact appears to be that the defendant Lockard accompanied the complainant to the dance. The parents probably assumed that he would return with her. They supposed that he was the person who did return with her. But it is easy to believe that in the darkness and excitement they were mistaken. As tending to show that they were, we have the positive testimony of one Mary Lamphire that she was one of the six persons who started homeward from the dance in the wagon, and that when they were half a mile from Stranahan's she and defendant Lockard left the wagon and walked to her home, half a mile in another direction, and left Mitchell to drive with complainant to her home. Neither the complainant nor any one else testified that Lockard touched her, or offered to touch her, or rendered Mitchell any assistance. The most that complainant testified to is that Lockard was driving when Mitchell had intercourse with her. She testified, however, that the horses walked home, and it is possible that they did so without a driver, and that the complainant in her excitement failed to observe it, or failed to remember it. Mary Lamphire testified that soon after she and Lockard left the wagon, and when they had gone about forty rods toward her home, she heard the complainant "holler." The testimony of the complainant, if she is to be believed at all, shows that she was ravished in a few minutes after Mary Lamphire left her, and that at the time she was ravished she "hollered." We are led almost irresistibly to the conclusion that, if complainant was ravished, Lockard was not even present. So strongly are we of the opinion that Lockard is innocent, we have to say that we think that as to him the verdict should have been set aside for want of evidence.
II. As to Mitchell, the evidence is entirely different. We think that it justified the jury in finding him guilty. It is contended, to be sure, that the testimony of the complainant was not corroborated. But in our opinion it was. It was shown that the complainant arrived home with marks of violence upon her, and there was evidence to the effect that the man who was with her, who, according to Mitchell's own testimony, was himself, undertook to account for her injuries by stating that the team ran away, which statement, if made, it appears was false.
III. It is contended, however, that the court erred in the admission of testimony. The complainant's mother was allowed to testify, against the objection of the defendants, that the complainant, upon her arrival, made complaint that she had been abused and ravished. The objection urged is that the witness was allowed to give hearsay evidence of particulars. They rely upon State v. Richards, 33 Iowa 420. In that case the court allowed evidence of the complainant's statement as to how she tried to get away from defendant and fell down, and as to some other particulars, but it was not held that the evidence should be limited to the fact that the complainant complained of being injured. If she stated that she had been ravished, the evidence might show the statement. The particularity might go to the extent of showing what injury she complained of. It is true...
To continue reading
Request your trial