State v. Trybom

Citation206 N.W. 246,200 Iowa 1248
Decision Date15 December 1925
Docket Number36244
PartiesSTATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. SIGFRID TRYBOM, Appellant
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Appeal from Montgomery District Court.--T. C. WHITMORE, Judge.

THE defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and was sentenced for life to the state penitentiary at Fort Madison. From this judgment he has appealed.

Affirmed.

Paul V Wilson, for appellant.

Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, Maxwell A. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney-general, Floyd E. Billings, and Paul W. Richards for appellee.

EVANS, J. FAVILLE, C. J., and ALBERT and MORLING, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

The case was before us on a former appeal. State v Trybom, 195 Iowa 780, 192 N.W. 813. The substance of the evidence is fully set forth in the former opinion, and we will not repeat it here. The defendant was charged with, and convicted of, shooting his own brother on the afternoon of October 31, 1920. These two brothers were two bachelors, of 31 and 35, respectively, who lived together in a little three-room house across the road from the residence of their parents. Each of them occupied a separate room therein. The shooting occurred in the room occupied by this defendant. Two companions were visiting at the house, and had been there for most of the day, up to the time of the shooting, which occurred about two o'clock in the afternoon. The defendant himself, however, had spent most of the day in his own room, and was in his room, engaged in cleaning and preparing his gun, when his brother entered the room. Immediately thereafter, the explosion of a gun was heard by the visitors, who immediately rushed into the room and found the brother lying upon the floor, mortally wounded from a gunshot wound. The defense interposed was that the shooting was accidental; that the brother came upon the defendant from behind, without warning, and suddenly jerked the gun away from him; that the gun was thereby accidentally discharged into the body of the deceased. The record discloses no apparent motive for the killing. The claim of accidental shooting would be very persuasive, if it had been made promptly. The arresting officers, as witnesses for the State, testified that, at the time of his arrest, the defendant asserted that he had to shoot his brother, to save himself; that his brother had frequently abused him, and given him black eyes; and that he would shoot him again, under the same circumstances. This evidence was denied by the defendant and by other witnesses who are alleged to have been present. If credence be given to these denials, then the defendant is left in the position of having made no explanation at all. According to the testimony in his behalf, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT