State v. Terry
Decision Date | 05 March 1929 |
Docket Number | 39406 |
Citation | 223 N.W. 870,207 Iowa 916 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. BUCK TERRY, Appellant |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Woodbury District Court.--C. C. HAMILTON, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of conspiracy. From the judgment entered he appeals.
Affirmed.
George A. Gorder, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, O. T. Naglestad, County Attorney and Weir Murphy, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
The sufficiency of the amended indictment was challenged by demurrer. Said demurrer was overruled, and the action of the court in that respect is now assigned as error.
The indictment charges Miller, two Fosters, and the defendant, Buck Terry, with the crime of conspiracy, committed as follows:
Our statutory law provides:
"If any two or more persons conspire or confederate together with the fraudulent or malicious intent * * * to do any illegal act injurious to the public trade, health, morals, or police, * * * they are guilty of a conspiracy * * *" Section 13162, Code of 1927.
The unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors is made a crime by Section 1924 of the Code, and the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquors is likewise made an offense by Section 1945-a1 of the Code.
Is the indictment sufficient? An indictment must contain:
"A statement of the facts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended." Section 13733 of the Code.
"The indictment must be direct and certain as regards: * * * The particular circumstances of the offense charged, when they are necessary to constitute a complete offense." Section 13735 of the Code. An indictment is sufficient if "the act or omission charged as the offense is stated in ordinary and concise language, with such certainty and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended, and the court to pronounce judgment according to law upon a conviction." Section 13743 of the Code.
We have repeatedly held that an indictment charging an offense in the language of the statute or in language equivalent thereto will be sufficient in a case where the language used so individuates the offense that the defendant has proper notice, from the terms used, of the particular crime with the commission of which he is charged. State v. Johnson, 114 Iowa 430, 87 N.W. 279; State v. Cummings, 128 Iowa 522; State v. Kendig, 133 Iowa 164, 110 N.W. 463; State v. Henderson, 135 Iowa 499, 113 N.W. 328; State v. Corwin, 151 Iowa 420, 131 N.W. 659; State v. Kernan, 154 Iowa 672, 135 N.W. 362. Many other authorities could be cited upon this proposition.
We have held in many cases that the gist of the offense of conspiracy is the unlawful agreement or combination, and that, where the agreement is to perpetrate a crime known to the common law, or defined by statute in unmistakable terms, all that is necessary for the purpose of the indictment is to designate the offense by using the name by which it is familiarly known. State v. Madden, 170 Iowa 230, 148 N.W. 995; State v. Rayburn, 170 Iowa 514, 153 N.W. 59; State v. Clemenson, 123 Iowa 524, 99 N.W. 139; State v. Ormiston, 66 Iowa 143, 23 N.W. 370; State v. Grant, 86 Iowa 216, 53 N.W. 120; State v. Soper, 118 Iowa 1, 91 N.W. 774; State v. Jones, 13 Iowa 269; State v. Eno, 131 Iowa 619, 109 N.W. 119; State v. Stevens, 30 Iowa 391; State v. Potter, 28 Iowa 554; State v. Poder, 154 Iowa 686, 135 N.W. 421; State v. Tonn, 195 Iowa 94, 191 N.W. 530; State v. Savoye, 48 Iowa 562. In 5 Ruling Case Law 1082, it is declared:
In State v. Clemenson, supra, we declared:
In State v. Rayburn, supra, we said:
"So in conspiracy cases, the crime intended to be accomplished by the conspiracy need not be described in the indictment with the accuracy or detail which would be essential in an indictment for the commission of the offense itself."
In State v. Ormiston, supra, we find the following pronouncement:
In State v. Soper, supra, we made the following pronouncement:
In State v. Eno, supra, we said:
"An indictment for conspiracy must show that the object of the conspiracy was criminal, or, if the object itself be not criminal, that the means employed to accomplish the object were criminal."
In State v. Potter, supra, we declared:
In State v. Poder, supra, we made the following pronouncement:
In State v. Savoye, supra, we said:
""
The amended indictment could have been more skillfully drawn, but it sufficiently charges a conspiracy to commit the crimes of the illegal sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors referred to in Sections 1924 and 1945-a1 of the Code. In addition thereto, it charges an overt act committed in pursuance thereof, by transporting, selling, and delivering intoxicating liquor to Simon Schrank. The unlawful sale and illegal transportation of intoxicating liquors are acts made crimes by our statutory law. Since said acts are made criminal, they are unlawful acts, and cannot be said to be uninjurious to the public morals or policy. In view of our numerous pronouncements upon this question, it must be held that the amended indictment is sufficient, and that appellant's complaint as to the same is devoid of merit.
The appellant contends that the court erred in receiving evidence as to overt acts before there was evidence establishing a prima-facie case of conspiracy. The record is in absolute contrariety to this contention of the appellant's. Moreover, we have held that the order in which evidence of this character may be introduced, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Walker, 124 Iowa 414, 100 N.W. 354. There is no merit in this contention of the appellant's.
The appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion for a directed verdict. We have read the record with care.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Terry
-
Woods v. Brown
... ... It is a matter of common knowledge that in the usual practice in this state attachment and garnishment proceedings are tried out in open court, and very frequently are submitted upon a motion to discharge the garnishee, often ... ...
-
Woods v. Brown
... ... to appeal. It is a matter of common knowledge that, in the ... usual practice in this state, attachment and garnishment ... proceedings are tried out in open court, and very frequently ... are submitted upon a motion to discharge the ... ...