State v. Steffens

• Citation: 116 Iowa 227,89 N.W. 974
• Parties: STATE v. STEFFENS.
• Decision Date: 09 April 1902
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

116 Iowa 227

89 N.W. 974

STATE

v.STEFFENS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 9, 1902.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; James W. Bollinger, Judge.

The defendant, having been accused and convicted of the crime of rape, appeals. Affirmed.Tom H. Milner, for appellant.

Chas. W. Mullan, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LADD, C. J.

The child, eight years old, testified as a witness, and, when first on the stand, went no farther than to say that the accused opened her drawers and his trousers, and got on top of her. Afterwards she was recalled, and stated, in substance, that he put his penis into her. On cross-examination she testified that her mother had told her shortly before to say this, and was then asked: “Q. What did she tell you to say? A. Everything he done to me. Q. She told you to tell that? A. Yes, sir. * * * Q. Why didn't you tell us yesterday afternoon what this man did? Was it because your mother did not tell you to? A. Yes, sir.” Thereupon defendant moved to strike the evidence, as being what her mother told her to say, rather than the truth. This was properly overruled, as it does not appear the mother put words into the child's mouth, but merely instructed her to make full disclosure of what had happened.

2. The pictures of the barn where the offense was committed were sufficiently identified as accurate by those familiar with the premises, and the evidence of penetration was ample for conviction. Evidence that the child was sick for several days was proper, as tending to confirm her account of having been abused. Proof that she may have been afflicted with other ailments might affect the weight of such evidence, but did not require its rejection.

3. In stating what was necessary in order to convict, the court omitted to mention that the offense must have been committed within 18 months previous to the finding of the indictment. The trial occurred October 16, 1900, and no evidence was offered tending to show that the crime was committed at any other time than September 8th of the same year. The jury must have found it to have been perpetrated then, if at all. The omission was without the slightest prejudice to the defendant.

4. The fault found with instructions 8, 9 1/2, and 10 is hypercritical, and demands no attention. The fourteenth instruction named the offenses included in rape, except that of simple assault. The evidence was such that the jury could not have found defendant guilty of an assault, without also finding him guilty of an assault and battery. There was no error, then, in the omission. State v. Sigg, 86 Iowa, 746, 53 N. W. 261. The last sentence of this instruction reads: “If there is a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense of which the...