State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 19 October 1910
• Parties: STATE v. SMITH.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

148 Iowa 640

127 N.W. 988

STATE

v.SMITH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 19, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; F. R. Gaynor, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of maliciously injuring and defacing a building, and appeals. Affirmed.Wm. Mulvaney, for appellant.

H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWIN, J.

The indictment in this case was found under the provisions of section 4822 of the Code, which provides as follows: “If any person maliciously injures, defaces or destroys any building, or fixture attached thereto, or willfully and maliciously destroys, injures or secretes any goods, chattels, or valuable papers of another, he shall be imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or be fined not exceeding $500 and be liable to the party injured in a sum equal to three times the value of the property so destroyed or injured.”

The indictment was in the following form: “The grand jury of the county of Cherokee, in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa, accuses malicious injury to the building and fixtures of the crime of committed as follows: The said C. M. Smith, on or about the 26th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eight, in the county as aforesaid, did willfully and maliciously injure a building, to-wit, the building belonging to the New State Telephone Company, located on a part of the south half of lot number eight in block number fourteen, Lebourveau's addition to New Cherokee, Iowa, by the willful and malicious breaking by the said defendant of the plate glass window in the frame door of said building on said date, contrary to the Iowa statutes, all done in Cherokee, Cherokee county, Iowa, said building owner being a corporation duly organized under the laws of Iowa.”

The appellant contends in various forms that the indictment in this case is fatally defective, for the reason that it was not drawn in strict compliance with the provisions of section 5281 of the Code. The principal objection that he makes to the indictment is based upon the fact that the caption of the indictment does not specifically accuse him of any crime. It is said that the indictment is insufficient, because in the caption it is said that the state of Iowa accuses malicious injury of committing a crime, instead of accusing the defendant. There is no merit in this contention, for several reasons. In the first place, the language used in the caption, and even the caption itself, might have been wholly omitted without in any way affecting the validity of the indictment. State v. McIntire, 59 Iowa, 264, 13 N. W. 286;State v. Davis, 41 Iowa, 311. The body of the indictment clearly charges that the crime of malicious mischief was committed by the defendant, C. M. Smith, and every necessary element of a valid...