State v. Todd
| Decision Date | 11 April 1900 |
| Citation | 82 N.W. 322,110 Iowa 631 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA v. CLARK TODD, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Benton District Court.--HON. GEORGE W. BURNHAM, Judge.
DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of maliciously threatening to do an injury to one Charles Pettit, to compel him (Pettit) to suffer defendant to do a loathsome act, against his will, and from the sentence imposed he appeals.
Affirmed.
Thos H. Milner for appellant.
Milton Remley, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Charles Pettit was a boy about eleven years of age, when he was placed on the witness stand. Question was made regarding his competency, and a preliminary examination regarding his understanding of the nature of an oath was had in the presence of the court and jury. The court concluded that the witness had sufficient understanding, and permitted him to testify. There was no error in this. The record clearly shows that the child had sufficient natural intelligence to understand the nature of an oath, and that he did fully comprehend it. It also appears that the witness was instructed by the county attorney regarding the nature of an oath shortly before he was placed on the witness stand, and that after being so instructed he understood its solemn nature. Such instruction was proper. Com. v Lynes, 142 Mass. 577, (8 N.E. 408; State v Severson, 78 Iowa 653, 43 N.W. 533. While Blackstone seems to have been of the opinion that a child's evidence must be corroborated (see 4 Blackstone Commentaries 214), such is not the rule in this country (1 Phillips Evidence [9th ed.] pp. 6. 7).
II. In his opening statement to the jury, the county attorney said he expected to prove that the defendant committed a similar crime upon another boy about the time he committed the offense charged. Defendant made no objection to the statement, and no exception was saved. When the county attorney offered evidence in support of the statement, an objection to it was sustained; and the jury were thus fully advised that they could not consider such fact, even if it had been true. Indeed, the county attorney, in offering the evidence, was not permitted to state what he expected to prove. It is apparent that no prejudice resulted to defendant from the statement of counsel as to what he expected to prove. Counsel should not be too closely limited in their opening statements, and misconception on their part as to the competency of evidence should not be ground for a new trial, unless so gross, or made under such circumstances, as that prejudice may be inferred. State v. Allen, 100 Iowa 7, 69 N.W. 274.
III. The credibility of the prosecuting witness is attacked, and the seeming contradictions in his evidence are made grounds for the contention that the boy did not understand the nature of an oath. We have already held that the proper preliminary showing as to competency was made. This being true, the credibility of the witness was for the jury. In arriving at the weight to be given his evidence, his understanding of the nature of an oath, and his capacity to comprehend the distinction between right and wrong, as disclosed by his preliminary examination before...
To continue reading
Request your trial