State v. Mushrush

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtGIVEN
Citation66 N.W. 746,97 Iowa 444
Decision Date08 April 1896
PartiesSTATE v. MUSHRUSH.

97 Iowa 444
66 N.W. 746

STATE
v.
MUSHRUSH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 8, 1896.


Appeal from district court, Audubon county; A. R. Thornell, Judge.

The defendant was jointly indicted with William McLaughlin, Walter Case, Charles Jones, and William Mushrush for the crime of murder in the first degree, in the killing of one Frank H. Leib. This defendant was separately tried, and convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years entered against him, from which he appeals. Affirmed.

[66 N.W. 746]

H. U. Funk, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and William Wonn, Co. Atty., for the State.


GIVEN, J.

1. On the evening of March 9, 1894, this defendant, in company with the other defendants and one Moon, went from the town of Audubon to a schoolhouse in the county, to a public meeting that was quite largely attended. Three brothers (Frank H., Leopold, and Otto Leib) were among those present. During the evening a quarrel arose between the defendant Case and Otto and Leopold Leib, on the porch in front of the schoolhouse. During the progress of the quarrel, Frank H. Leib came from the inside of

[66 N.W. 747]

the house, and, after a few words, assaulted Case, knocked him off the porch, and was pursuing the assault, whereupon defendant McLaughlin stabbed him in the abdomen with a knife, inflicting a mortal wound, of which the said Frank H. Leib died in a few days thereafter. There is no evidence, nor is it claimed, that this defendant made any assaults or inflicted any injury upon deceased. The claims of the state are these: That this defendant and William McLaughlin and others had conspired and agreed that an attempt should be made to whip Frank H. Leib, or inflict some injury upon his person, or upon him and his brothers, and that the killing was done by McLaughlin in an attempt by him to carry out that unlawful purpose; that, before the killing, McLaughlin contemplated and designed to inflict some injury upon the person of Frank H. Leib, or upon him and his brothers, and that before Leib was stabbed by McLaughlin this defendant knew of such intention upon the part of McLaughlin, and advised, or encouraged or incited him to carry out said unlawful purpose; and that the wound which caused Leib's death was inflicted by McLaughlin in an attempt to carry out said unlawful purpose. The defendant, by his motion for a verdict and his motion for a new trial, which were overruled, and by exceptions to instructions given and refused, has preserved, and here presents, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain either of said claims of the state.

2. The following is, in substance, the evidence tending to show defendant's connection with the affair: A few evenings prior to the affray at the schoolhouse, McLaughlin and this defendant were together at a dance at the house of a Mr. Seimsen. Frank H. Leib was also there. McLaughlin said, in the presence and hearing of this defendant, that he would like to hit Frank H. Leib,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • Smith v. State, No. 94-245
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 31, 1995
    ...cert. denied, Ex parte Durden, 208 Ala. 697, 93 So. 922 (1922); Lesieurs v. State, 170 Ark. 560, 280 S.W. 9 (1926); State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa 444, 66 N.W. 746 (1896); Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 19, 14 S.W.2d 194 (1929); Phelps v. State, 15 Tex.App. 45 (1883). The evidence of Rhoden's......
  • Wildeboer v. Petersen, No. 33097.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1919
    ...or clerk of the grand jury may testify as to what the witness said before the grand jury; also State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444-449, 66 N. W. 746, that a juror may testify as to what a witness said, even though that testimony was taken down in shorthand; Woraz v. Railway, 175 Iowa, 378-379, ......
  • State v. Johnston, No. 42924.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 19, 1936
    ...the court erred in holding that the testimony was not admissible because it was not the best evidence. State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444, 66 N.W. 746;State v. Dean, 148 Iowa, 566, 126 N.W. 692;State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa, 240, 132 N.W. 180. However, we find no prejudicial error in the court's ru......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 5, 1911
    ...to be adduced in advance of prima facia proof, on assurance that this will be produced subsequently. State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444, 66 N. W. 746;State v. Grant, 86 Iowa, 216, 53 N. W. 120. The better practice, however, is to require a prima facia showing of conspiracy before receiving suc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • Smith v. State, No. 94-245
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 31, 1995
    ...cert. denied, Ex parte Durden, 208 Ala. 697, 93 So. 922 (1922); Lesieurs v. State, 170 Ark. 560, 280 S.W. 9 (1926); State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa 444, 66 N.W. 746 (1896); Gilbert v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 19, 14 S.W.2d 194 (1929); Phelps v. State, 15 Tex.App. 45 (1883). The evidence of Rhoden's......
  • Wildeboer v. Petersen, No. 33097.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 15, 1919
    ...or clerk of the grand jury may testify as to what the witness said before the grand jury; also State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444-449, 66 N. W. 746, that a juror may testify as to what a witness said, even though that testimony was taken down in shorthand; Woraz v. Railway, 175 Iowa, 378-379, ......
  • State v. Johnston, No. 42924.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 19, 1936
    ...the court erred in holding that the testimony was not admissible because it was not the best evidence. State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444, 66 N.W. 746;State v. Dean, 148 Iowa, 566, 126 N.W. 692;State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa, 240, 132 N.W. 180. However, we find no prejudicial error in the court's ru......
  • State v. Gilmore
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 5, 1911
    ...to be adduced in advance of prima facia proof, on assurance that this will be produced subsequently. State v. Mushrush, 97 Iowa, 444, 66 N. W. 746;State v. Grant, 86 Iowa, 216, 53 N. W. 120. The better practice, however, is to require a prima facia showing of conspiracy before receiving suc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT