State v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 28 October 1879 |
| Citation | 52 Iowa 284,3 N.W. 99 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF IOWA, APPELLEE, v. PETER P. STEWART, APPELLANT. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Harrison district court.
The indictment charged that the defendant “did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously administer to one Surrilda Purcell, who was then and there a pregnant woman, certain drugs and substances, and did then and there unlawfully * * * * use a certain instrument * * * with intent then and there and thereby to produce the miscarriage of the said Surrilda Purcell, such miscarriage * * * not being necessary to save her life.” There was a verdict of guilty, judgment, and defendant appeals.Cochran & Bailey, for appellant.
J. F. McJunkin, for the state.
1. The second and third instructions given the jury were as follows:
“2. There are in the offence, with which the defendant is charged as enumerated in the indictment herein, the following material allegations, to-wit: First, that on or about the first day of November, 1878, said Surrilda was pregnant. Second, that the defendant, Stewart, wilfully administered to said Surrilda Purcell some drugs, or drugs or substances, with the intent to produce the miscarriage of said Surrilda Purcell, or that he used some instrument upon said Surrilda with the intent to produce her miscarriage. Third, that this was done by defendant at and within this county and state, and on or about the first day of November, 1878, and while said Surrilda was pregnant.
If the first and third of the foregoing material allegations are fully and clearly proven, and either the first or second averment of the second allegation is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and you are further satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant, your verdict should be guilty. If not so satisfied, then your verdict should be not guilty.
3. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as fairly and naturally arises in the minds of the whole jury after fully and carefully weighing and considering all the evidence which has been introduced herein during the progress of the trial, when viewed in the light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the same.”
It is insisted these instructions are erroneous, and in relation thereto we have to say, (1) in order to constitute the crime charged Surrilda Purcell must have been pregnant at the time the drugs were administered or instrument used with intent to produce the miscarriage. Unless the fact of pregnancy was established beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was entitled to an acquittal. But it does not follow that the jury should be instructed to this effect. It is sufficient if the jury are instructed they should acquit if, upon the whole case, they have such a doubt. When such an instruction is given it covers the whole ground, and necessarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Estrella
...be present in all their minds before they could acquit the defendant. He cites State v. Sloan, 55 Iowa 217, 7 N.W. 516, and State v. Stewart, 52 Iowa 284, 3 N.W. 99, as support for his contention. There the reference was to the 'minds of the whole jury,' and as pointed out by the State, the......
-
Barker v. State
... ... entertain views different from his own. But a jury need not ... be advised of so simple a proposition. The usual method of ... instructing upon the measure of proof required in criminal ... cases is sufficient.' In State v. Sloan, 55 ... Iowa, 217, 7 N.W. 516, and State v. Stewart, 52 ... Iowa, 284, 3 N.W. 99, instructions that a reasonable doubt ... was such as arose fairly and naturally in the minds of the ... whole jury, and such as was susceptible of being so construed ... as to require the jury to convict, unless each individual ... juror shared a reasonable doubt ... ...
- The State v. Stewart