State v. Peffers
| Decision Date | 08 October 1890 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. PEFFERS |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Decided October, 1890.
Appeal from Marshall District Court.--HON. S. M. WEAVER, Judge.
DEFENDANT was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree and was adjudged to be confined in the penitentiary at Ft Madison at hard labor for the term of fifteen years, and to pay the costs of prosecution. From that judgment he appeals.
AFFIRMED.
J. L Carney, for appellant.
John Y. Stone, Attorney General, and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.
In the evening of the twenty-fourth day of September, 1889, the defendant killed one John Cathers by stabbing him with a pocket-knife. A few minutes before that occurred the wife of the defendant passed deceased and one Rinard, as they were sitting in front of a drug store in Marshalltown. She made some remark, and conducted herself in such a manner that Cathers followed her. He overtook her within a short distance, and the two were walking together when the defendant approached. Some words passed between him and Cathers; there was a brief struggle, and a knife wound was inflicted, which caused the death of Cathers within a few minutes. It is claimed, on the part of the defense, that Cathers followed the wife of defendant for the purpose of making indecent proposals to her; that he took hold of her person, and endeavored to force her to comply with his wishes; that she resisted, and when her husband approached informed him of the facts; that he was at once assaulted by Cathers, and, for the purpose of defending himself and wife, he resisted, and struck the fatal blow; that what he did was done in self-defense, without malice, and without premeditation, and that he could not in any event be convicted of a higher crime than manslaughter.
I. Rinard testified that when he and Cathers were sitting in front of the drug store Mrs. Peffers went by. When near them she slackened her speed, and said something which he understood to be, "What do you say?" at the same time looking at them. They made no response, and she passed on, looking back once or twice as she walked. The witness was then permitted to testify, against the objections of defendant, that after the woman had passed he asked decedent if he knew her, and he said, "No," that he was going to see what she wanted. The witness further stated that Cathers told him that he would not go far, and would be back, and that he then followed the woman. We think the testimony was properly admitted as a part of the transaction which led to the killing of Cathers. It explained to some extent his reason for being with Mrs. Peffers when the affray occurred, and was so far a part of the res gestae as to be competent. State v. Cross, 68 Iowa 180, 26 N.W. 62. It may be, as claimed, that it would naturally be inferred from the remark of Cathers that he had been invited by Mrs. Peffers to follow her, but the jury had before them all the facts upon which the remark was based, and knew whether it was well founded.
II. Defendant attempted to prove by the records of a justice of the peace and of the mayor of Marshalltown that deceased had been convicted of the crime of assault and battery, and of having been intoxicated, and of having used vulgar and profane language on the street in presence of ladies; but the offered evidence was rejected on the objection of the state. We think the ruling was correct. Defendant was permitted to show the general reputation of deceased as to being quarrelsome and inclined to fight, but proof of particular acts was properly rejected. State v. Abarr, 39 Iowa 185; Forshee v. Abrams, 2 Iowa 571.
III. Mrs. Peffers was arrested for the murder of Cathers, and while under arrest testified before the coroner's jury. She was also a witness for the defense in the court below, and on cross-examination was asked if she had not testified to certain matters before the coroner's jury. The question was objected to by defendant, on the ground that she had the right to refuse to testify in regard to the crime with which she was charged, in any preliminary investigation respecting it, and that her statements made under oath under those circumstances were incompetent. The record shows that she testified before the coroner freely, with knowledge that she had a right to decline to answer the questions put to her. The question under consideration was asked to lay the foundation for impeaching her. We think the question was a proper one, and that the matter sought to be proven was not privileged. See State v. Teeter, 69 Iowa 717, 27 N.W. 485.
IV. The court in its charge to the jury defined the crimes of...
To continue reading
Request your trial