State v. Steinke
| Decision Date | 17 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | 32396 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. GOTLIEB STEINKE, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Keokuk District Court.--HENRY SILWOLD, Judge.
THIS defendant, together with Robert and Rudolph Steinke, was indicted by the grand jury, charged with the crime of assault with intent to commit great bodily injury. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and, defendants demanding a separate trial, this defendant was first tried to a jury, and convicted of assault and battery; and judgment was pronounced, by which said defendant was committed to the county jail for 30 days. He appeals. --Reversed.
Reversed.
Stockman & Baker, for appellant.
H. M Havner, Attorney General, and F. C. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
The prosecuting witness, Robert Shultz, and the defendant, were neighboring farmers, as was the father of prosecutor. Defendant had bought a stack of hay of the elder Shultz, and in hauling the hay, he was using the lane on the north side of the prosecutor's 40. Defendant's two sons, Robert and Rudolph, were assisting in the hauling. There is a dispute between the witnesses for the State and the defendant, as to what occurred at the time of the controversy, the defendant claiming that the prosecuting witness did not object to the use of the lane by the defendant. The prosecutor says he told the Steinkes they could go through as many times as they wanted to, if they stayed in the road or track, but that he did not want anyone to drive over his meadow. The next day, defendant and his sons hauled hay, and again drove over the meadow; and, according to the testimony of the prosecutor, he told defendant he would rather defendant would not drive over his meadow. He further testifies that defendant said nothing, until he got close to the prosecutor; that Shultz stopped, about 20 feet from defendant, and defendant had his form on his arm, with both hands on it, holding to it. The wife of prosecutor testified that she saw defendant make at her husband with the pitchfork; that she then went out of the house, and heard threats that he would kill him; that Robert and Rudolph said they had been waiting for a chance to trample prosecutor on the ground; that they were all cursing, and making threats; that defendant said he would get prosecutor before daylight, and that prosecutor would never see daylight again; that, at that time, she saw Robert Steinke come up and hit prosecutor with a fork; and that Rudolph hit him with a fork. The defendant testifies that the fuss was over when Mrs. Shultz came out of the house. The defendant's version of the affair is that Shultz came out, cursing, and that defendant told Shultz to get out of the way; and that, by that time, Shultz grabbed defendant's fork,--grabbed the handle of the fork; that Shultz had hold of the fork with both hands, and tried to get the fork away from defendant; that Robert Steinke said to Shultz to let go of the fork, and Shultz kitched Robert in the stomach and lower part of the bowels; that Rudolph came up then, and told Shultz to let loose of the fork; and that, when Shultz did not do so, Rudolph cuffed him with his hand; that the blow Rudolph struck Shultz with his hand did not knock him down; and that Shultz was never down, at any time. Defendant says he had the fork in his left hand, carrying the handle first, and the times were behind him; that, when Shultz kicked Robert, Robert his Shultz on the forehead, and then Shultz let loose; that Rudolph hit Shultz with the fork handle; that they had been hauling hay, and defendant and his sons all three had forks. Dr. Pfannebeck saw prosecutor eight or ten times, and described his injuries: a wound on the temple, a bruise where the skin was lacerated and torn, two inches across, and almost round, and another bruise or cut above that in his hair. Another injury was found about the abdomen, and bruises over the public bone, with some discoloration. Prosecutor complained of pain. Each side contends that the other was the aggressor. The evidence was such that this, and the question as to whether defendant was properly acting in self-defense, were questions for the jury.
1. To the indictment as returned by the grand jury, defendant interposed a demurrer, upon the ground that the said indictment did not charge an indictable offense, and that, therefore, the district court was without jurisdiction to try defendant for the offense charged in the indictment. The demurrer was overruled, and defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and was tried, as before indicated. The question of the sufficiency of the indictment was raised at every stage of the trial, and the rulings in regard to this are among the principal grounds relied upon for a reversal. The indictment follows. After charging that the three defendants were accused of the crime of assault to commit great bodily injury, it states that:
"The said Robert Steinke, Gotlieb Steinke, and Rudolph Steinke, at the county of Keokuk and state of Iowa, on or about the 26th day of January, 1917, did then and there, with a deadly weapon, to wit, pitchforks, the particular description of which is unknown to this grand jury, then and there in the hands of Robert Steinke, Gotlieb Steinke, and Rudolph Steinke, upon one Robert Shultz make an assault with intent then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, to stick, beat, cut, stab, and otherwise ill treat and abuse the said Robert Shultz, and did inflict on the body and person of said Robert Shultz, a great bodily injury, contrary to, and in violation of law."
The statute, Section 4771, as it appears in the Code Supplement 1913, is the same as it was formerly, except as to the punishment. The contention of appellant, as they state it, is that the indictment in this case charges no crime greater than assault and battery; that it is the unlawful intent to inflict a great bodily injury that the law aims at; and that no intent to inflict such injury is averred. They cite State v. Clark, 80 Iowa 517, 45 N.W. 910; State v. Collins, 178 Iowa 73, 159 N.W. 604; State v. Harrison, 82 Iowa 716, 47 N.W. 777; State v. Malcolm, 8 Iowa 413; State v. Pasnau, 118 Iowa 501, 92 N.W. 682; State v. Debolt, 104 Iowa 105, 73 N.W. 499; 5 C. J. 740. Appellant contends that the indictment in this case is in the wording of the indictment in State v. Clark, supra, and that there, the indictment was held insufficient for the reason that it merely charged an intent to strike and bruise. The State contends that the language of the indictment in the instant case is broader than the language in the Clark and Harrison cases, cited; although, later in the argument, counsel for the State concede that the Clark case and the Harrison case, supra, sustain appellant's contention; but they say that they feel the rule therein announced to be absolutely wrong. The language of the indictment in this case is, in all material respects, identical with the language used in the Clark and Harrison cases. It is true that the decisions in those cases were by a divided court, and there has been some criticism of those two cases in later decisions; but they have never been overruled. In our opinion, the reasoning in those cases is sound, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial