State v. Steinke
| Decision Date | 17 February 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 32396.,32396. |
| Citation | 185 Iowa 481,170 N.W. 801 |
| Parties | STATE v. STEINKE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Keokuk County; 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.Stockman & Baker, of Sigourney, for appellant.
H. M. Havner, Atty. Gen., and F. C. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecuting witness, Robert Shultz, and the defendant were neighborhood 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.
[1] 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 any one 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, and that defendant said nothing until he got close to the prosecutor; that Shultz stopped about 20 feet from defendant, and defendant had his fork 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. Defendant said he would get prosecutor before daylight; 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 kicked 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 him 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 tines were behind him; that, when Shultz kicked Robert, Robert hit Shultz with the handle, only once; that Rudolph hit 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, and almost round. Another bruise or cut above that in his hair. Another injury was found about the abdomen, and bruises over the pubic 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.
[2] 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, “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 willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously to stick, beat, cut, stab, and otherwise illtreat 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, is the same as it was formerly, except as to the punishment. The contention of appellants, as they state it, is that the indictment in this case charges no greater crime 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, at 606;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...
To continue reading
Request your trial