State v. Sangster
| Citation | 196 Iowa 495,192 N.W. 155 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 34288.,34288. |
| Parties | STATE v. SANGSTER. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Buchanan County; Geo. W. Wood, Judge.
The defendant, having been indicted and convicted upon the charge of rape committed upon a female child under 15 years of age, appeals. Affirmed.Cook & Cook, of Independence, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., and B. J. Flick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
[1] The defendant demurred to the indictment upon the ground that the charge made therein does “not state the time of the commission of the alleged offense.” The allegation as made is that the alleged crime was committed “on or about the _______ day of _______, 1920,” upon the person of a female child under 15 years of age. Counsel make the point that as the said child was admittedly 15 years of age not later than August 30, 1920, it was essential that the indictment should charge the offense as of an earlier date. The objection is not well taken. It is settled that the date of the commission of a criminal act averred in an indictment need not be proved as laid. It is sufficient if it be shown that the act was committed prior to the return of the indictment and within the statute of limitations. State v. Enright, 90 Iowa, 522, 58 N. W. 901;State v. Kirkpatrick, 63 Iowa, 554, 19 N. W. 660;State v. Moore, 78 Iowa, 494, 43 N. W. 273.
[2] II. Appellant further challenged the grand jury panel because the judges of the election in making out the list of names to be returned in the poll books for jurors in certain wards or precincts of Buchanan county “failed and neglected to consider women as eligible to such service, although women in fact constituted 50 per cent. of the voters, thereby depriving the accused of the right to be tried by a jury of his peers.” Evidence was offered in support of the challenge so made, and, the court having overruled the objection, error is assigned thereon. No evidence was offered of any prejudice resulting in fact to the accused from the alleged irregularities in making up the jury lists, but it is argued that prejudice must be presumed. Counsel do not cite any authority or precedent for such conclusion. So far as our own cases bear upon the subject of such omissions or irregularities in the summoning and impaneling of a grand jury, the clear trend of judicial opinion is that, so long as no names are placed upon the lists which could not properly have been included, and no class of persons is excluded to the defendant's prejudice, there is no good ground for questioning the validity of the indictment. State v. Pell, 140 Iowa, 661, 119 N. W. 154;State v. Walker, 192 Iowa, 823, 832, 185 N. W. 619. The trial court did not err in overruling the challenge in this case.
III. The defendant offered no testimony in his own behalf, but rests this case for a reversal upon the theory of a failure of the state to support its charge by adequate proof, and upon his exceptions to the court's charge to the jury, as well as to certain rulings relating to the admission of evidence. There is no merit in the objection to the sufficiency of the testimony. There was a vigorous effort by the defense to weaken or discredit the state's allegation that the girl in question was under 15 years of age at the time of the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial