State v. Norman

• Decision Date: 21 December 1920
• Docket Number: No. 33485.,33485.
• Citation: 180 N.W. 151,190 Iowa 472
• Parties: STATE v. NORMAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

190 Iowa 472

180 N.W. 151

STATE

v.NORMAN.

No. 33485.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 21, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Joseph E. Meyer, Judge.

Defendant appeals from the verdict and judgment against him on a charge of assault with intent to rob. Affirmed.S. B. Allen, of Des Moines, for appellant.

H. M. Havner, Atty. Gen., B. J. Powers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. G. Rippey, Co. Atty., of Des Moines, for the State.

ARTHUR, J.

The appellant, Pete Norman, together with Jim Dunnegan, Margaret McAtee, and Marie Bergman, were indicted jointly by the grand jury of Polk county for the crime of assault with intent to rob Fred Erisman. A separate trial of Jim Dunnegan was had, and he was found guilty and sentenced for an indeterminate period of five years at the reformatory at Anamosa.

On the trial the state introduced evidence tending to show: That the defendants, the four persons jointly indicted, had been associating together, had been together considerably for several days before the alleged assault with intent to commit robbery occurred, which was on July 7, 1919; that these four persons had arranged that Jim Dunnegan was to hold up Erisman; that they had planned to rob Erisman; that on the evening of July 7, 1919, about 6:30 o'clock or 7 o'clock, Margaret McAtee and Marie Bergman were together on Locust street in the city of Des Moines, near Third and Fourth streets, and there they met Fred Erisman; that Margaret McAtee met Erisman and introduced him to Marie Bergman, and the three walked west to a point somewhere between Twelfth and Fifteenth streets and Grand avenue, and there they met Pete Norman, and from there the four walked in a southwesterly direction toward the pumping station of the Des Moines waterworks, and from thence they walked across to the railroad track, and on south of the waterworks pumping station; that Pete Norman and Marie Bergman walked together, and Margaret McAtee and Fred Erisman were together; that Fred Erisman had been in the army and just received his discharge a few hours before he met with these defendants, and that Erisman had to be at the depot, as he was to leave Des Moines on a train that went out at 10:30; that the party spent some time about an old sawmill south of the waterworks; that Erisman, having to leave at 10:30, started back along the road that they had come over in company with Margaret McAtee, Pete Norman and Marie Bergman following them a short distance; that Erisman had only proceeded a short way when they reached a spot where weeds were growing on each side of the road, and some man jumped out and commanded Erisman to throw up his hands; that Erisman did not throw up his hands, but moved toward his assailant, who was Jim Dunnegan, and grappled with him; that as Erisman moved toward Dunnegan, a shot was fired, and Pete Norman ran up to where the encounter was taking place, and three other shots were fired; that the flash of a gun was seen from the hand of Pete Norman––a gun itself was not seen in the hand of Norman, but the gun flash was seen to come from the hand of Norman.

Marie Bergman testified that a gun was in Pete Norman's hand; that it was dark; that she could not see the gun, but she saw the flash of a gun coming from his hand; that previously during this same day Norman had in his possession two guns, which were seen by her, and that she had them in her possession for a time, and gave them back to Norman; that Norman had told her that one of the guns was out of repair and would not shoot.

Erisman's testimony was to the effect that the shooting was done by Jim Dunnegan.

Two members of the Des Moines police force testified that Pete Norman admitted in their presence that he shot Erisman.

Appellant took the stand, and denied having anything to do with the shooting.

An examination and discussion of the indictment and the evidence to determine the sufficiency of the charge and the character and sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict will dispose of the material questions involved in the case and raised by the assignment of errors.

[1] Counsel for ...