State v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 05 July 1911
• Citation: 132 N.W. 51,151 Iowa 572
• Parties: STATE v. THOMAS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

151 Iowa 572

132 N.W. 51

STATE

v.THOMAS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 5, 1911.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Lawrence De Graff, Judge.

Indictment for murder in the first degree. Trial to a jury, verdict of guilty, and judgment of imprisonment for life. Affirmed.J. B. Rush and Thomas L. Sellers, for appellant.

George Cosson, Atty. Gen., and Henry E. Sampson, Sp. Counsel, for the State.

DEEMER, J.

Defendant and deceased, one Harry L. Cook, were in the employ of the Turner Improvement Company, which, on the 18th day of June, 1910, was engaged as a contractor in paving what is known as East Fourth street in the city of Des Moines. Cook was acting as timekeeper for the company, and defendant, a colored man, was working for the company as an ordinary day laborer. On the evening of the 17th of June, defendant went to the deceased and made claim of some time coming to him. This was denied by Cook, and deceased left him (Cook). On the next morning, somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock, defendant and two other colored men were seen in conference, and defendant was heard to say that he was going down to “the works” and have his pay. The men were apparently excited, and defendant was advised by a policeman, who was at hand, to stop drinking and to keep away from the works, where he might cause trouble. To this defendant responded, “By God, I am going to have my money anyway.” Shortly thereafter defendant with his companions appeared at the works, and defendant again asked Cook “for his time.” Cook then asked him how much he thought he was short, to which defendant responded that he did not know, but he knew he was short. Cook then asked him how he knew, to which he responded, “Well, because, by God, I know I am short.” The conversation continued for some time; defendant becoming boisterous and using violent, profane, and abusive language toward Cook. At one time defendant said, “I will have it, or I will get you.” Finally Cook was seen to throw his hand to his side, and was heard to say, “He got me! Yes; he got me with a knife right between the ribs.”

After stabbing Cook, defendant stood a few moments, knife in hand, and then started walking rapidly in an easterly direction. Cook called for some one to stop him. Thereupon one Eaton started after defendant, and he (defendant) turned and began to throw stones at Eaton. Catching up with defendant, Eaton struck him with his fist and kicked the knife, which he was still holding, out of his hand. A policeman then appeared upon the scene and took defendant in custody. While in charge of the policeman, defendant heard some one say that Cook was dying, and fearing, as he said, a mob he broke away from the officer and made his escape, going to South Des Moines, where after an exciting chase he was captured in a patch of weeds in the south part of the city and taken to police headquarters. Cook died from the effects of his wound some time the next day. The knife had penetrated the lung tissue, and had passed through the diaphragm into the liver; the wound being something like 3 1/2 inches long. Defendant claimed on the trial that he was acting in self-defense. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree, and sentence was passed accordingly.

For a reversal defendant relies upon many grounds, and the briefs presented by his counsel (which are typewritten), because of failure to comply with our rules, are overburdened with alleged errors presented in such a manner that it is difficult to arrive at the exact propositions relied upon. In general it may be said that complaint is made of the rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony, of some of the instructions, and finally it is insisted that the verdict is without support in the evidence. We shall not notice all the points made, for many of them are ruled by previous cases, and are not debatable.

[1] 1. Turning first to the rulings on testimony. Many complaints are made of undue limitation placed upon the cross-examination of some of the state's witnesses. This matter is so largely within the discretion of the trial court that reversals are few because thereof. It must be shown, before error can be predicated upon such rulings, that they were arbitrary or unfair, and resulted in prejudice to defendant. That does not appear here.

[2] Something of the previous history of the deceased was shown by the state, over the defendant's objections. In this there was no error. Counsel for defendant insisted upon many repetitions from the witnesses of their testimony, and upon this ground many objections were interposed by the county attorney, which were sustained by the trial court. In no instance do we find any error prejudicial to defendant.

[3] The matter sought to be shown had already been brought out, and nothing could be gained by repetition, save a useless expenditure of time. Defendant claimed that after some words had passed...