State v. Stice

• Decision Date: 12 May 1893
• Citation: 55 N.W. 17,88 Iowa 27
• Parties: STATE v. STICE.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 Iowa 27

55 N.W. 17

STATE

v.STICE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 12, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Appanoose county; W. I. Babb, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for lewdness. He pleaded not guilty, was convicted, and sentenced to the county jail, and appeals.J. A. Elliott and Geo. D. Porter, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., Thos. A. Cheshire, and C. F. Howell, for the State.

KINNE, J.

1. The defendant was indicted for the crime of lewdness, committed on March 20, 1892, by willfully exposing his person (private parts) in a public place, in plain view of a public thoroughfare where people were passing. The case is submitted to us upon a complete transcript, but without argument on behalf of either party. The crime for which defendant was indicted and convicted is alleged to have been committed on Sunday, March 20, 1892, in the presence of a young lady, whose name need not be mentioned. On the trial the court admitted evidence of acts of a similar character committed by the defendant at the same place, on the same day, and also on the preceding day, which were committed in the presence of parties other than the prosecuting witness. It is insisted that this evidence was incompetent. The general rule is that evidence of distinct and separate offenses is not admissible to establish the defendant's guilt of the particular offense charged. There are certain well–recognized exceptions to this rule, as in cases where knowledge and intent are necessary elements of the offense charged. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th Ed.) § 53, note; Rosc. Crim. Ev. pp. 90–94; Whart. Crim. Ev. § 44; 2 Rice, Ev. pp. 521, 522; Com. v. Sawtelle, 141 Mass. 140, 5 N. E. Rep. 312; Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419, 2 N. E. Rep. 816. In the class of cases mentioned it is held that, as such evidence is admissible to show guilty intent in doing the act charged, it is no ground of objection thereto that it may also show that the defendant is guilty of another crime. This exception to the general rule has often been recognized by this court. State v. Walters, 45 Iowa, 389;State v. Jamison, 74 Iowa, 617, 38 N. W. Rep. 509;State v. Saunders, 68 Iowa, 370, 27 N. W. Rep. 455;State v. Kline, 54 Iowa, 183, 6 N. W. Rep. 184. The evidence of other acts, introduced by the state, showed that, both before and after the commission of the offense with which the defendant was charged, he had made like exposures of his person to young ladies. Surely such facts are competent to establish the claim that the offense for which he was on trial was designedly committed. Under the statute it is incumbent upon the state to show that the act was...