State v. Tatman
Citation | 13 N.W. 632,59 Iowa 471 |
Parties | STATE v. TATMAN |
Decision Date | 17 October 1882 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Adair District Court.
THIS is a prosecution under an indictment for the crime of uttering a forged deed. There was a trial by jury and defendant was convicted, and he appeals.
AFFIRMED.
J. W West, for appellant.
Smith McPherson, Attorney-general, for the State.
I.
The defendant was put upon trial at the March term, 1880. After all the evidence had been introduced, the presiding judge received a telegram from his home at Des Moines, to the effect that his wife was sick, and asking him to go to his home. This was on the 9th day of March, 1880. The court was adjourned until the following Friday, and the jury were discharged until that time, and the judge went to his home. On Friday, the judge by a telegram ordered the court to be finally adjourned, and on the Monday following his wife died.
At the March term, 1881, of said court, the defendant was again put upon trial upon the indictment. He filed a written plea setting out the facts, and alleging that legal jeopardy had attached and that he could not again be put upon trial upon the indictment. The cause was submitted to a jury upon this issue, and a verdict was found to the effect that the defendant was not entitled to an acquittal upon that ground.
It is provided by the constitution of this State that "no person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense." It is urged that the facts above cited amounted in law to an acquittal, or, what is the same thing being once in jeopardy. Cooley's Const. Lim., 325.
While this is the general rule, there are many exceptions to it in the common law. If, by any overruling necessity, the jury are discharged without a verdict, as from the sickness or death of the judge holding the court, or of a juror, or the inability of the jury to agree on a verdict, or if the term of the court as fixed by law comes to an end before the trial is finished, or if the jury are discharged with the consent of the defendant, or a new trial be granted, the defendant may again be put upon trial upon the same indictment. Most of these exceptions are provided for by statute in this State. Code, §§ 4443-4; 4455-6-7-9. And in State v Redman, 17 Iowa 329, it was held that when a verdict is insufficient and defective in not responding to the indictment, the court may set it aside and try the prisoner again on the same indictment. In the State v. Calendine, 8 Iowa 288, when the name of a material witness upon the part of the State was not indorsed on the indictment, he not having been before the grand jury, and objection being made to his testimony, the court dismissed the indictment, and ordered the prisoner to be held to bail, and another indictment was found, it was held that the defendant could not again be put upon trial. In that case it is said that An examination of other cases, which will be readily...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Barry
...no legal ground of discharge being shown, the effect is the same as a verdict of acquittal. State v. Calendine, 8 Iowa 288; State v. Tatman, 59 Iowa 471, 13 N.W. 632; Josephine v. State, 39 Miss. 613; Teat State, 53 Miss. 439; King v. People, 5 Hun. 297; Com. v. Cook, supra; Com. v. Fitzpat......
-
Diggs v. United States
...... contenting himself by merely referring to it as having been. taken, and by testifying to his state of mind for some days. previous to the taking of that trip. Now this was the. defendant's privilege, and, being a defendant, be could. not be ... support the ruling of the court below in giving the. instruction which is assigned as error. Thus, in State v. Tatman, 59 Iowa, 471, 13 N.W. 632, the court said:. . . . 'The. attention of the jury may properly be called to the fact. that the ......
-
State v. Larkin
...defendant's failure to deny or contradict incriminating facts, statements or circumstances, is left absolutely open to the State. [State v. Tatman, supra.] Time and again, ever since the rule announced in State v. Graves, supra, which is now criticized, was first enunciated, this question h......
-
Parham v. State
...coach, lost its magic. Examples of proper manifest necessity have arisen from: illness of prisoners, jurors, judges (in State v. Tatman, 59 Iowa 471, 13 N.W. 632 of the judge's wife; in Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37, 7 So. 302 of a juror's wife); death of a juror, the judge or a near relative ......