State v. Richardson
Decision Date | 20 June 1933 |
Docket Number | 40819 |
Citation | 249 N.W. 211,216 Iowa 809 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. FRED RICHARDSON, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED SEPTEMBER 21, 1933.
Appeal from Ida District Court.--P. J. KLINKER, Judge.
The defendant was convicted on an indictment charging manslaughter in the killing of a child, Robert Bevins, by striking him with an automobile which the defendant was operating. From the judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. C Walter, Ray G. Walter, and Salinger, Reynolds & Meyers, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Neill Garrett, and Geo. H. Clark, Jr., County Attorney, for appellee.
Robert Bevins, a child, was struck and fatally injured by the defendant's car about 4 o'clock on the afternoon of September 24, 1930. At the time the fatal injuries were inflicted, the defendant was driving north on Moorehead avenue in the city of Ida Grove. There is a parking in the center of this street. The deceased, with other children, was playing on the parking and in the vicinity of the place where Robert was struck. The testimony tends to show that the automobile, a model T Ford, was being driven at a speed of thirty-five or forty miles per hour. There was also testimony tending to prove that the defendant was at the time intoxicated. Robert was on the curb along the side of the parking in the center of the street or possibly standing on the parking itself. The automobile was driven by defendant upon the parking before Robert was struck. The car proceeded northward a considerable distance, perhaps a half of a block or further, before it was stopped. Defendant testified that he did not see Robert, and that he deflected the course and went upon the parking in the center of the street to avoid striking another child in the path of his automobile.
An opinion was previously filed in this case and a rehearing granted. State v. Richardson, 240 N.W. 695.
All of the propositions urged for reversal relate to the instructions to the jury or the refusal of the court to give certain requested instructions. The court in paragraph 10 of its charge to the jury defined involuntary manslaughter and stated the rules for determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. In the course of the opinion in that case we said:
It is insisted by counsel for appellant that instruction 10 is inconsistent with the doctrine announced in Siesseger v. Puth, 213 Iowa 164, 239 N.W. 46. This case involved the interpretation of section 5026-b1 of the Code of 1927. This section relates entirely to civil actions brought to recover damages for injuries to automobile guests, and bears no relationship whatever to the statute involved in this case. The cases cited supra sufficiently make this clear.
It is also contended that the court committed error in the instruction under consideration upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to advise the jury that the culpable indifference must be indifference to life as distinguished from indifference to the safety of others. One contention here made is without merit, and is fully answered by what is said above.
II. The contention is made by counsel that the case was tried below upon the theory that the death of Robert Bevins was the result of unavoidable accident and not of criminal negligence. This theory of the defendant, as above stated, was not in specific terms submitted to the jury. It was admittedly the duty of the court to submit to the jury all of the special defenses urged by the defendant. It is always incumbent upon the court to clearly, fully, and definitely define the crime charged and to instruct the jury as to the elements essential to be proven. Again, at this point, we quote from our former opinion:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial