State v. Taylor
Decision Date | 13 March 1923 |
Docket Number | 34528 |
Citation | 192 N.W. 294,196 Iowa 1015 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. D. W. TAYLOR, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 23, 1923.
Appeal from Polk District Court.--LESTER L. THOMPSON, Judge.
DEFENDANT was convicted of rape, and appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A Dyer, for appellant.
Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, for appellee.
Three main points are relied upon by appellant for a reversal. First, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence; second, he alleges that the corroboration is not sufficient; and third, he claims that the court erred in admitting, over objection, the revolver and handkerchiefs, because, as is argued, they were not sufficiently identified.
1. The defendant is 33 years of age. Prosecutrix is a young, married woman, 18 years old, who, at the time of the transaction, had a child 14 months old, who was with her. She was 7 or 8 months gone in pregnancy at the time. Her husband works for the railroad, as does the defendant. Defendant lives in the third house from that of prosecutrix and her husband, in Valley Junction. The houses are not far apart. The families were friendly, and had visited a few times, and had been acquainted for some months prior to the transaction, which occurred about 3 o'clock in the morning, March 2, 1921. No point is made by appellant that the jury could not have found that there was penetration and intercourse to some extent. The prosecutrix, Mrs. Kalberg, resisted as much as she dared. This being so, we shall not go into the details of this particular matter any more than seems to be necessary to cover other points. In addition to the matter just referred to, her testimony, briefly, is this:
The Robbins testify as to what she said when she came to their house, and as to her condition, and that she was very nervous or excited.
The husband testified that, after defendant was arrested, and at the mayor's office about 11 o'clock the next forenoon, the officers told his wife, in the presence of defendant, that she ought to be certain before she accused this man, "and I myself asked her many questions as to the possibility of mistaken identity, and she said she could not be mistaken." She accused defendant in his presence, and defendant denied the accusation.
The State's evidence is that, at that time, defendant begged to have the prosecution dropped, and offered to pay the costs. Defendant, testifying as a witness on this subject, qualifies somewhat the last statement, and says that the prosecutrix was willing to drop the prosecution, and that she was not certain that he was the party, and that the marshal asked him if he would pay the costs of the court if they dropped it, and he replied that he would, if they did not have the money.
Without going into further detail, it is enough to say that there is other evidence.
The evidence bearing more particularly on the question of corroboration, also on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial