State v. Smith
Citation | 73 Iowa 32,34 N.W. 597 |
Parties | STATE v. SMITH. |
Decision Date | 20 October 1887 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Jones county; JAMES D. GIFFIN, Judge.
The defendant was indicted for murder in the second degree. He was tried and convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and he appeals.Remley & Ercanbeck and Sheean & McCarn, for appellant.
A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The first point made by counsel for appellant is that the court erred in overruling certain challenges for cause, interposed by the defendant to several of the persons called as jurors in the trial of the case. The ground of these challenges was that the jurors to whom objection was made had formed opinions upon the merits of the cause, and were so prejudiced as to be disqualified to try the case. All of these persons were examined and cross-examined as to their condition of mind with reference to the charge made against the prisoner; and, in the course of their examination, they each stated that they had not formed or expressed such an opinion as would prevent them from rendering a true verdict upon the evidence submitted on the trial. It was thus made to appear to the court that they were not disqualified as jurors, by reason of their state of mind with reference to the crime charged. Code, § 4405, sub. 11. The course of examination of the jurors and their answers were very nearly the same as in the case of State v. Vatter, 32 N. W. Rep. 506, in which we held that there was no error in overruling the challenges for cause.
2. The defendant was charged in the indictment with the murder of Betsy Smith, who was his wife. She was last seen alive on the evening of the twenty-fourth day of February, 1886. On the next morning she was found dead in the bed occupied by herself and her husband. There was but one witness who testified directly to acts of violence by the defendant towards the deceased. The name of this witness was Charles Duffy, who for some time prior to the alleged homicide had been living or boarding with the defendant. Duffy and defendant were in the city of Anamosa on the twenty-fourth day of February, 1886, and in the afternoon of that day the defendant returned to his home some three or four miles distant. Duffy returned from Anamosa later in the day, and arrived at defendant's house about dark. The testimony of this witness is quite voluminous, and, without setting it out in detail, we will state some of the principal facts stated by him in his examination as a witness upon the trial. When he reached the defendant's home, he saw the deceased standing in the door of a privy about 45 feet from the house, and the defendant was near the kitchen door picking up stove-wood. She called him a brute. The witness went into the house and the defendant locked the kitchen door on the inside, and went to the stable to do chores. The deceased came to the kitchen door, and asked to be let in, and the witness opened the door, and let her in. She attempted to sit down on a chair, and fell off the chair on the floor, and witness assisted her and helped her up on the chair. She was very much intoxicated. The witness went to the stable, and met the defendant, who said the deceased was drunk. The two men returned to the house, and found the deceased sitting where the witness had let her. The defendant took hold of her and gave her a shake, and she fell on the floor. He took her by one arm, and attempted to pull her into the sitting room. Witness told defendant not to do that, and then both of the men took hold of her, and put her in the room, and left her on the floor. The defendant kicked her twice, and called her a drunken beast, and complained of the habits of his wife, and how long he had endured it, etc. After talking for some time the defendant said: “I'll go back, and see if she is sober, and if she is she has got to leave this place.” He went in the room where she was lying, and took hold of her by the feet and dragged her out of the house some eight or ten feet from the door, and kicked her two or three times, and left her there. Thereupon the witness raised her up, and took her through the kitchen into the sitting-room. The defendant followed in, and took her by the hand, and pulled her round the room trying to wake her up, and saying that she would have to leave the place; that he would not have her round any longer. After talking for a while about his misfortune in having to live with such a woman, he requested the witness to light a lamp that he might put her to bed. The witness did as directed, and left the house, and, as we have said, the woman was found the next morning in the bed dead.
We have recited this much of the testimony of Duffy for the purpose of showing the violence which the state claimed upon the trial was inflicted upon the person of the deceased by the defendant. It is not to be denied that the witness was to a certain extent impeached by contradictory statements as to where he lodged on the night in which the deceased died; and it is admitted that, early on the next day, he disappeared from the neighborhood, and was afterwards found several miles away, and arrested and lodged in jail as a supposed accomplice in the alleged crime. But we are not prepared to say that the jury were not warranted in finding, from the evidence, that the defendantassaulted the deceased, and used the violence testified to by Duffy. And we may say in this connection, and without further elaboration or discussion, that we find no error in the rulings of the court on objections to the introduction or exclusion of evidence.
3. A post mortem examination of the body of Mrs. Smith was had on the twenty-fifth day of February, 1886. Dr. S. J. Adair, a physician and surgeon, assisted in making the examination. He was introduced as a witness by the state. His examination in chief was as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wheelock, No. 41521.
...innocence of the defendant, other than a fixed opinion, has been held to be no insuperable objection to serving on a jury. State v. Smith, 73 Iowa, 32, 34 N. W. 597;State v. Munchrath, 78 Iowa, 268, 43 N. W. 211;State v. Lindsay, 161 Iowa, 39, 140 N. W. 903;State v. Ralston, 139 Iowa, 44, 1......
-
Jacobs v. Village of Buhl, 31145.
...Witt v. Witt's Food Market, 122 Pa.Super. 557, 186 A. 275. We agree with the statement of the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Smith, 73 Iowa, 32, 41, 34 N.W. 597, 601; "Life at best is but of short duration, and one who causes death ought not to be excused for his act because his victim was ......
-
State v. McDonald
...discrimination case.6 See also the following other "hastening or contributing to death" cases cited in Cox:In State v. Smith, 73 Iowa 32, 34 N.W. 597, 601 [ (1887) ] ... "It surely ought not to be the law that because a person is afflicted with a mortal malady, from which he must soon die, ......
-
Jones v. City of Caldwell
...the railroad company . . . . and if it contributed and hastened her death, then the corporation would not be guiltless." In State v. Smith, 73 Iowa 32, 34 N.W. 597, the said: "It surely ought not to be the law that because a person is afflicted with a mortal malady, from which he must soon ......