State v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 06 June 1906 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. GEORGE ALLEN MITCHELL, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Poweshiek District Court.--HON. W. G. CLEMENTS, Judge.
THE defendant was tried on an indictment charging him with the murder of John Parker, and was convicted of manslaughter. He appeals.
Affirmed.
D. W Hamilton and J. W. Carr, for appellant.
Charles W. Mullen, Attorney General, and Lawrence De Graff, Assistant Attorney General for the State.
The chronology of this case is substantially as follows: The defendant was a tenant on the farm of James Sparks under a written lease in which Sparks reserved the use of certain rooms in the house and the right to go upon said premises at any time for lawful purposes. Prior to the 19th day of August, 1904, Sparks occupied the reserved rooms and kept some stock on the premises. John Parker, the deceased, was the son of T. B. Parker, and lived with his father on a farm adjoining the Sparks land. Sparks spent the night of the 18th of August at the Parker home, and toward noon of the 19th the two Parkers and Sparks, with a team and wagon, went across a part of the Sparks farm to the house or barn lot, where they were met by the defendant and ordered off of the place. John Parker had opened a gate for the team to pass into the barn lot immediately preceding the defendant's arrival, and was standing near the wagon at the time they were ordered away. Sparks and the elder Parker were then in the wagon. Very soon thereafter John Parker and the defendant engaged in a physical conflict, in which both fell to the ground; John Parker being on top of the defendant. The advantage of such position does not appear to have been lasting, however, for young Parker soon called to his father to come and loosen the defendant's hand from his throat. The father at once responded to the call, and did loosen the defendant's grasp, and almost immediately thereafter the defendant arose and fled to the house. Whether he was pursued by one or both of the Parkers is a disputed question; but, if any pursuit was made, it was of short duration, and ended some thirty or more feet from the house. The defendant remained in the house a few moments, and then came out with a gun in his hands and at once started for the barn, which was about seventy feet from the house. At this time both of the Parkers were in the barn, and, as we understand the record, were out of the defendant's sight. When the defendant was near the barn, John Parker came out, and almost immediately the gun held by the defendant was discharged, and Parker was killed. Two defenses were interposed--self-defense and temporary insanity.
One of the appellant's contentions is that there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; but with this contention we find ourselves unable to agree. We have given the entire evidence careful consideration, and are abidingly satisfied that the verdict is right.
The court permitted the state to prove the enfeebled mental and physical appearance of John Parker at the time he was killed and afterward withdrew such testimony from the consideration of the jury. Conceding, for the purposes of this case, that the testimony was improperly admitted, it was not of a character to prejudice the defendant.
It appeared during the trial that T. B. Parker, the father of the deceased, and Sparks, the landlord, had both, at different times, had slight difficulties with the defendant. It was not claimed that John Parker was in any way concerned in any of these affairs; but the appellant persistently sought to show what they were, and the statements that had been made relative thereto by Sparks and the elder Parker. This is one of the questions asked Parker on cross-examination, and the others are of the same kind: "You told Mr. Sparks about your trouble with George in the field, and about his ordering you not to come upon the premises, did you not?" The testimony was clearly incompetent for any purpose. It did not tend to prove or disprove any material issue in the case, nor did it tend to contradict or impeach the witness on any material matter, or tend to show bias or prejudice on his part.
The appellant also offered testimony tending to show that Sparks had made threats to remove him from the farm and to have his son thresh him. Threats made by Sparks were not material under the record in this case. There is no evidence tending to show a conspiracy on the part of Sparks and the deceased, and we know of no rule of evidence permitting proof of threats by parties wholly and entirely strangers to the case. State v. Weaver, 57 Iowa 730, 11 N.W. 675; State v. Elliott, 45 Iowa 486.
The appellant proved a self-serving declaration, which was stricken out on motion. This ruling was right. State v. Carter, 112 Iowa 15, 83 N.W. 715.
Complaint is made of the cross-examination of the defendant, but we find nothing therein requiring specific mention, much less a reversal of the case. The appellant also attempted to show that Sparks had made improper proposals to his wife. The subject was entirely foreign to any matter involved in this case, and the court very properly refused to enter the field.
The appellant's physician was called by the state and asked as to a wound on the defendant's head in 1901. He was not permitted to testify, however, and no prejudice appears from the questions alone.
The state undertook to show that the appellant had engaged in a fight in 1901 and had then received a severe wound in the back of...
To continue reading
Request your trial