State v. More
Decision Date | 20 December 1901 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. CHAS. MORE, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Taylor District Court.--HON. H. M. TOWNER, Judge.
THE defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of adultery.
Affirmed.
McCoun & Jennings for appellant.
Chas W Mullan, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
The court, over defendant's objections, admitted evidence of his undue familiarity with Edith Schrader, and of facts from which sexual intercourse with her might be inferred occurring subsequent to the act of adultery for which the state elected to prosecute.
And some of the acts appear to have been accomplished in the neighboring state of Nebraska. In State v. Smith, 108 Iowa 440, 79 N.W. 115, it was pointed out that in neither State v. Donovan, 61 Iowa 278, 16 N.W. 130, nor State v. Oden, 100 Iowa 22, 69 N.W. 270, did the court pass on the admissibility of such evidence. In each the rule excluding it is conceded rather than determined, and the introduction of evidence of this character, which we think entirely proper, declared to have been without prejudice. Doubtless in some of the earlier cases in this country evidence was restricted as contended it should be by appellant, but the later text-books and decisions recognize the ordinary course of human conduct as a proper element for consideration in such investigations. The disposition of the accused persons toward each other at the time alleged must necessarily have an important bearing on the deductions to be drawn from the incriminating circumstances proven, and this is ordinarily of gradual development, and not likely to suddenly disappear. As said in Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 111 (100 Am. Dec. 110): It was also held in State v. Bridgman, 49 Vt. 202 (24 Am. Rep. 124', that evidence of other acts of improper familiarity and adultery between the parties to the alleged offense, continuing from before until after the offense charged, and after indictment found is admissible, although it proves other and distinct offenses, to show the true relation of the parties to each other, and also to show that the restraints and safeguards of common deportment and conventionality, and of the natural modesty that is presumed to exist, have been broken through and displaced by the adulterous disposition and the habits of adulterous intercourse. The court, in Crane v. People, 168 Ill. 395 (48 N.E. 54) declared that: "Whatever may have been said to the contrary in certain cases, it must now be regarded as settled law that in such cases prior acts of improper familiarity or of adultery between the parties, whether they occurred in the same jurisdiction or not, and even subsequent acts which tend to show continued illicit relations between them, may be proved in explanation of or as characterizing the acts and conduct of the parties complained of, as constituting the particular offense charged." In State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531, the court observed that: "Latterly, courts and text writers are rapidly falling in with the view that acts prior to and also subsequent to the act charged in the indictment, when indicating a continuousness of illicit intercourse, are admissible in evidence, as showing the relation and mutual disposition of the parties; the...
To continue reading
Request your trial