State v. Reinheimer
| Decision Date | 28 October 1899 |
| Citation | 80 N.W. 669,109 Iowa 624 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF IOWA v. REINHEIMER, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Linn District Court.--HON. H. M. REMLEY, Judge.
DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of seduction and from the judgment imposed appeals.
Reversed.
E. W Griffith and Smith & Smith for appellant.
Milton Remley, Attorney General, Chas. A. Van Vleck, and W. O Clemans for the state.
The accused is charged with having seduced one Nora Dixon on or about December 25, 1896. A witness with whom the prosecutrix was stopping at the time she claims to have been seduced testified to certain facts tending to show she (the prosecutrix) was enceinte in February of the year 1896, and then said: "I say the was in a delicate condition because she was sick the same that any woman is; that is, sick in that way." On motion of the state, the court struck out the conclusion of the witness that prosecutrix was in a delicate condition, but allowed her testimony as to the fact of her condition to remain before the jury. The ruling was correct. The evidence stricken was the mere conclusion of the witness drawn from facts allowed to remain in the record, and as such it was inadmissible. The witness was not an expert, and the facts upon which she gave her opinion were not so numerous, or of such nature, as that they could not be clearly brought before the jury. In these respects the case differs from those relied on by appellant.
II. A witness was offered by defendant to prove the general reputation of the prosecutrix as to chastity. This evidence was properly rejected. State v. Prizer, 49 Iowa 531; State v. Shean, 32 Iowa 88.
III. The defendant offered in evidence what purported to be the extended notes of the evidence of the prosecutrix taken down by a shorthand reporter at the time of the preliminary examination of the defendant, and this evidence was rejected. This ruling was also correct. Such evidence could only be used for impeaching purposes, and we have heretofore held that it cannot be so used. State v. Hayden, 45 Iowa 11. In any event, the whole of the witness' testimony before the committing magistrate was immaterial. Only such parts of it as were at variance with her testimony given upon the trial of this case, and to which her attention had been called, were proper to be considered for purpose of impeachment.
IV. After defendant had introduced evidence tending to show the unchastity of the prosecutrix, the state was permitted to sustain her character by proof of her general reputation in the community in which she lived. This evidence was certainly competent. State v. Shean and State v. Prizer, supra.
V. The fifth instruction relates to the corroboration of the evidence of the prosecutrix required by the statutes of the state. No complaint is made of the instruction, but it is said there is no evidence on which to base it. We have frequently held that the fact that the parties kept company, and acted as lovers usually do, and other like circumstances, are sufficient to constitute the corroborating evidence necessary to connect the defendant with the offense. State v. McClintic, 73 Iowa 663, 35 N.W. 696; State v. Wells, 48 Iowa 671; State v. Hayes, 105 Iowa 82, 74 N.W. 757; State v. Curran, 51 Iowa 112, 49 N.W. 1006.
VI. Some claim is made that the offense is barred by the statute of limitations. The prosecutrix testified that she yielded her virtue on December 25, 1896. The indictment was found on January 19, 1898. If the witness is to be believed, the offense is not barred.
VII. The motion for a new trial was accompanied by affidavits tending to show newly-discovered evidence relating to the chastity of the prosecutrix, and by an affidavit from the prosecutrix herself to the effect that she had had intercourse with defendant in February of the year 1896. Newly discovered evidence is not in itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial