State v. Sterrett

• Citation: 68 Iowa 76,25 N.W. 936
• Parties: STATE v. STERRETT.
• Decision Date: 17 December 1885
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa

68 Iowa 76

25 N.W. 936

STATE

v.STERRETT.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 17, 1885.

Appeal from Louisa district court.

The defendant was accused of murder of the second degree, committed, as charged in the indictment, in the killing of one Wade Campbell. On the trial of the indictment he was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and from this judgment he appeals.Newman & Blake and Hall & Huston, for defendant, Frank Sterrett.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

REED, J.

At the time of the transaction in question, the defendant was about 16, and the deceased about 18, years of age. They were pupils in the same school, and sat near each other in the school-room. On the day of the occurrence the defendant, feeling some inconvenience from the heat of the stove, raised a window near which he and the deceased were sitting. Deceased immediately closed the window. Defendant raised it again, and placed a book under it. In a short time after this occurrence the school was dismissed for a recess. Soon after defendant passed out of the school-house he was attacked by the deceased, who went out ahead of him and waited for him near the door. Campbell was considerably larger than the accused, and handled him quite roughly in the struggle in which they engaged. When he first attacked him, he gave him a jerk which whirled him around, and threw him onto his hands and knees. When the defendant got upon his feet, Campbell seized him again, and there was evidence tending to show that he caught him by the throat, and was choking him. During the struggle defendant drew a pistol from his pocket, which was discharged against Campbell's person. The ball entered his chest, inflicting a wound of which he died in a few minutes. Defendant testified that he had no intention to shoot Campbell when he drew the pistol, but that his purpose in drawing it was to intimidate him, and thereby induce him to desist from the assault upon him, and that he did not cock the weapon or intentionally discharge it. There was other evidence, however, tending to prove that he declared during the struggle that he would shoot him unless he desisted from the attack upon him. Also that he afterwards stated that he had shot him, and that he did so because he was abusing him. On behalf of the defendant it was contended-- First, that the killing of Campbell was by misadventure; and, second, that if the act which occasioned his death was intentionally committed by defendant, it was done in the reasonable and lawful defense of his own person from injury from the assault which Campbell was committing upon him. And both of these questions were submitted to the jury.

1. On the trial, defendant produced a witness by whom he proposed to prove that he was well acquainted with defendant, and had had opportunity of observing him and knowing his disposition, and that he was of a quiet and peaceable disposition, and not quarrelsome or addicted to strife. But, on the objection of the state, this evidence was excluded. The ground of the objection is not stated in the abstract, and the attorney general contends that the evidence was properly excluded on the ground that the offer was to prove the personal observation and knowledge of the witness as to the trait of character in question, and not the general reputation of the defendant in that respect in the community in which he lived. His position is that it is the estimate which the community has attached to him, rather than his real qualities as conceived by the witness, which the defendant is entitled to give in evidence. That this position has the support of some of the text-writers is certainly true, and adjudicated cases sustaining it are not wanting. In our opinion, however, there exists no sound reason for the holding that the proof should be confined to the reputation of the defendant with respect to the trait of character in question. The object of introducing evidence with reference to the character of the accused is to establish a fact upon which a presumption of his innocence may be based. The purpose of the evidence is to show that his disposition is such that he would not be likely to commit the crime of which he is accused, and that there is therefore a strong presumptionthat he did not commit it. But this presumption rests, not upon the reputation that he possesses certain traits of character, but...