State v. Podor
| Decision Date | 03 April 1912 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, v. ISADORE PODER, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mahaska District Court.--HON. K. E. WILCOCKSON, Judge.
THE defendant was convicted of having entered into a conspiracy to do an illegal act injurious to public morals and appeals.
Reversed.
Bolton & Shangle, for appellant.
George Cosson, Attorney-General and H. E. Sampson, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
The specific charge made against the defendant is that he conspired with two other named persons with the unlawful purpose and intent to entice certain named young women from their homes, and from the persons having them in legal custody, for the purposes of prostitution and lewdness, and to cause said young women to become prostitutes, and commit adultery and fornication. The case was tried to a jury, and defendant found guilty as charged.
I. The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the indictment, in that it fails to charge an indictable offense, and is void for duplicity. It is said, among other things, that the indictment fails to charge any overt act, and will not therefore sustain a conviction. The objection is unsound. It may be, and doubtless is, true that in some cases the offense of conspiracy is not complete without some overt act, and, when such is the case, the act must be alleged and proved. To this class of cases, Code, sections 5297 and 5490, on which counsel rely, are applicable, but the conspiracy charged in the present case is of statutory creation. See Code, section 5059, which makes it an indictable offense to conspire to do "any illegal act injurious to public morals." When, therefore, the accusation is made in the language of the statute, and the particular illegal act injurious to public morals, which act is the subject of the alleged conspiracy, is stated, the charge is complete. Counsel further argue that the indictment does not charge a conspiracy to do an illegal act, but is, in effect, an allegation of conspiracy to attempt the perpetration of an illegal act, and that this does not constitute an indictable offense. While the indictment is somewhat inartificially drawn, the criticism here directed against it is not justified. True, the pleader does in one case speak of a conspiracy to do an illegal act "by attempting to entice," etc., yet, when he comes to the charge of the specific act, he alleges, in substance, that said persons did conspire to take and entice the young woman named into a life of prostitution and lewdness, which enticement is clearly an offense against the provisions of Code, section 4942.
Bearing upon this branch of the case, it should also be said that the crime which is the object of the conspiracy need only be named in general terms, without stating the facts constituting it. See State v. Loser, 132 Iowa 419 at 429, 104 N.W. 337; State v. Soper, 118 Iowa 1, 91 N.W. 774.
Nor is there any merit in the further objection that, because the appellant is alone charged with a crime which in the nature of things can be committed only by a combination of two or more persons, the indictment is sufficient, and a conviction thereunder cannot be sustained. It has never been held that the state must indict and convict all the parties to an alleged conspiracy or none. So clear and elementary is it under our system of criminal practice, that any one or more of the persons jointly implicated in the commission of any public offense may be separately tried and convicted without regard to the prosecution of his confederates that we need take no time to cite authorities. The further suggestion that the indictment charges two or more offenses is likewise untenable. It charges a single conspiracy to do a single unlawful act, and, while it indulges in much repetition, it does not affect the unity or identity of the charge presented.
II. Among the witnesses produced on the trial was one of the young women referred to in the indictment. While being examined by counsel for the state, she was sharply reprimanded by the court and warned that she must answer the questions propounded to her, and tell the truth. Of this the appellant vigorously complains, and says that it was in effect a suggestion to the jury that defendant was guilty and that the witness was testifying falsely. It is quite evident from the record that the witness was testifying with reluctance, and frequently indulged in the answer, "I don't remember," and the court appears to have believed that she was evading the inquiries made of her. We are unable to say that the rebuke was not justified. The witness was before the court, which could observe her appearance, conduct, demeanor, and tone, and, if these warranted the conclusion that she was not speaking frankly or fully of the matters inquired about, it was within the province of the court to interfere and remind the witness that she was under oath, and must tell the truth, and the whole truth. State v. Cleary, 97 Iowa 413, 66 N.W. 724. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this discretion was abused.
III. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show his previous good...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stassi v. United States
...court will instruct without request, character evidence is not one of them. People v. Luce, 178 N. W. 54, 210 Mich. 621; State v. Poder, 135 N. W. 421, 154 Iowa, 686; Brantley v. State, 113 S. E. 200, 154 Ga. 80; State v. Peterson, 16 P. 263, 38 Kan. 204; State v. McNamara, 13 S. W. 938, 10......
-
State v. Dowell
... ... [47 ... Idaho 467] See, also, the following cases holding that a ... character instruction need not be given without a proper ... request: Kreiner v. United States, supra; ... Brantley v. State, 154 Ga. 80, 113 S.E. 200; ... State v. Podor, 154 Iowa 686, 135 N.W. 421; ... State v. Peterson, 38 Kan. 204, 16 P. 263; ... People v. Luce, 210 Mich. 621, 178 N.W. 54; ... State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 S.W. 938; ... Sweet v. State, 75 Neb. 263, 106 N.W. 31; 16 C. J ... The ... above is not out of harmony with the ... ...
-
Kinard v. United States, 6969.
...the court will instruct without request, character evidence is not one of them. People v. Luce, 210 Mich. 621, 178 N.W. 54; State v. Poder, 154 Iowa 686, 135 N.W. 421; Brantley v. State, 154 Ga. 80, 113 S.E. 200; State v. Peterson, 38 Kan. 204, 16 P. 263; State v. McNamara, 100 Mo. 100, 13 ......
-
Kreiner v. United States, 229.
...court will instruct without request, character evidence is not one of them. People v. Luce, 178 N. W. 54, 210 Mich. 621; State v. Poder, 135 N. W. 421, 154 Iowa, 686; Brantley v. State, 113 S. E. 200, 154 Ga. 80; State v. Peterson, 16 P. 263, 38 Kan. 204; State v. McNamara, 13 S. W. 938, 10......