State v. Porter
| Decision Date | 23 May 1898 |
| Citation | 75 N.W. 519,105 Iowa 677 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. J. N. PORTER, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Guthrie District Court.--HON. W. A. SPURRIER, Judge.
INDICTMENT for subornation of perjury. Verdict of guilty, and a judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed.
Affirmed.
E. W Weeks for appellant.
Milton Remley, attorney general, and Jesse A. Miller for the state.
I.
The defendant was previously indicted and tried for the crime of nuisance, in keeping and selling intoxicating liquors in violation of law. On the trial of that indictment one Frank Revell was a witness for the state, and testified that he did not on or about the tenth day of February, 1894, buy intoxicating liquor of J. N. Porter at his place of business in Guthrie Center, Iowa. For so testifying, an indictment for perjury was returned against Revell, to which he pleaded guilty. This indictment against defendant is for procuring such false testimony. Revell had testified before the grand jury, at the finding of the indictment, that he had purchased liquor of Porter, and on the trial of the indictment he gave contrary testimony. The indictment in this case sets out the charging part of the indictment in the nuisance case; that Revell was a witness therein, duly sworn; and that "the said J. N. Porter did then and there willfully, corruptly and feloniously suborn and procure him, the said Frank Revell, falsely to depose and swear, upon his oath aforesaid in substance and to the effect following." Then follows what is charged as the false testimony. It is insisted that the simple statement that Porter did "suborn and procure" Revell to testify falsely is not enough, but that the means or method employed ought to be set out. The indictment includes the language of the statute, and this is sufficient in all cases where the statute so far individuates the offense that the offender has proper notice, from the statutory terms, of the particular crime charged. Wharton Criminal Pl. & Prac. 220. This is not a case where there is necessity for so stating the particular facts constituting the inducement as to identify the transaction nor is it one in which the method or means could have been lawful. If the defendant induced Revell to testify falsely, and did so knowingly, it is quite immaterial what means he used,--whether in themselves illegal or not. The crime does not inhere in the method or means, but in the result,--the procurement; and the defendant could be guilty of only one such offense as to a witness in a particular case. To charge seduction in the language of the statute is held sufficient. State v. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 N.W. 1006; State v. Conkright, 58 Iowa 338, 12 N.W. 283. And yet there is as good reason for requiring the facts to be set out. One guilty of subornation of perjury has been adjudged an accessory before the fact of perjury. Com. v. Smith, 93 Mass. 243, 11 Allen 243. So it has been held that one charged with subornation of perjury may be presented in the same indictment with one accused of perjury, though each offense is made by statute a substantive felony. Com. v. Devine, 155 Mass. 224 (29 N.E. 515); Reg. v. Goodhall, Russ. & R, 461; Reg. v. Goodhall, 2 Russ. Crimes, 622, note o. Under our statute, distinctions between accessories before the fact and principals are abrogated, and all must be indicted as principals. Code 1873, section 4314. And, where a crime may be committed by only one person, another may be joined in the indictment, and convicted, for aiding therein. State v. Comstock, 46 Iowa 265. In such cases the particular facts or method of aiding or abetting are not set out, the crime only being charged. Why should the particular facts constituting the procurement of one to commit perjury be particularly stated in an indictment for subornation thereof? It is made a distinct offense, under the statute; but this would not necessarily change the rule of pleading, more than to require the use of the language defining it in connection with the necessary allegation charging the commission of perjury. And this...
To continue reading
Request your trial