State v. Schwab

Decision Date15 January 1901
Citation84 N.W. 944,112 Iowa 666
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Appeal from Sac District Court.--HON. Z. A. CHURCH, Judge.

DEFENDANT was convicted of the crime of assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and appeals therefrom.


C. R Metcalf for appellant.

Milton Remley, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.



Defendant was indicted for the crime of assault with intent to commit murder, and found guilty of the included offense of assault with intent to commit manslaughter. The complaint made here in his behalf is that the evidence does not sustain the verdict. The facts, in the main, are not disputed. Defendant met the prosecuting witness, Miles, and the latter's brother, near Grant City. They were riding in a buggy. He asked and obtained permission to ride with them to Auburn. The three rode together as far as Grant City, which was the home of the prosecuting witness, who then alighted. The other two men drove on to Auburn. While in the town of Auburn defendant claims to have discovered that his money--some $ 75--was missing. He walked back to Grant City, went to the home of the prosecuting witness, entered, and took a chair. Nothing was said about the money. After a few moments Miles' daughter exclaimed, "Pa, that man has a gun." Miles turned around, and discovered that defendant had a revolver pointed at him. He caught defendant's hand, and the pistol was discharged. Defendant had been drinking, but was not much intoxicated. He claims that he did not intend to shoot, but only to frighten or force Miles into giving up his money. But at the same time he admits he had no reason to believe that Miles had taken it. He says he thought Miles might know where it was. It is claimed the evidence does not warrant a finding of any more serious offense than the misdemeanor of pointing a pistol at another. The pistol was loaded. The inference is that defendant knew this fact and this inference is not rebutted. It was cocked, and ready to fire, when pointed, for it exploded when Miles caught defendant's hand. Defendant's statement of what he intended is not conclusive of that fact. The jury had a right, in reaching a conclusion on this question, to consider all the circumstances of the transaction; and these are consistent only with the conclusion that he intended to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT