State v. Symens
Decision Date | 08 April 1908 |
Citation | 115 N.W. 878,138 Iowa 113 |
Parties | STATE v. SYMENS. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Scott County; J. W. Bollinger, Judge.
Defendant was indicted for the crime of rape. Upon trial to a jury he was convicted of an assault with intent to commit a rape, and appeals to this court. Affirmed.F. A. Cooper and W. H. Peterson, for appellant.
H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecutrix was barely over the age of consent, and defendant is her brother-in-law. The offense is said to have been committed on an island in the Mississippi river, to which point the defendant took the girl in a rowboat. There can be no question that the verdict has sufficient support in the evidence, and, if there be a reversal, it must follow from some error committed by the trial court. Many of these are alleged, and to such as seem to merit attention we shall now refer. We extract the following from the abstract showing the record with reference to complaints made by the prosecuting witness: Prosecutrix's mother was on the witness stand, and the following is her testimony and the record with reference to this matter: “ Appellant concedes that the state may show recent complaints of the prosecutrix to the person to whom they would naturally be made; but he says that the particulars thereof are not admissible, and that, for this reason, the trial court was in error in the rulings complained of. It is true that the witness should not be permitted to detail the particulars of the complaint; but it is equally true that enough may be given in evidence to show the nature of the complaints, even though it involves to some extent the particulars thereof. State v. Barkley, 129 Iowa, 484, 105 N. W. 506;State v. Peterson, 110 Iowa, 647, 82 N. W. 329;State v. Egbert, 125 Iowa, 447, 101 N. W. 191;State v. Bebb, 125 Iowa, 495, 101 N. W. 189;State v. Icenbice, 126 Iowa, 21, 101 N. W. 273;State v. Andrews, 130 Iowa, 609, 105 N. W. 215. Following this rule, it is apparent that the court did not err in its rulings. There was nothing objectionable in the testimony given by the mother.
2. The assistant county attorney was present at an examination made by a doctor of the prosecutrix's private...
To continue reading
Request your trial