State v. Vance

• Decision Date: 08 April 1903
• Citation: 94 N.W. 204,119 Iowa 685
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA v. MARK VANCE, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

94 N.W. 204

119 Iowa 685

THE STATE OF IOWA v. MARK VANCE, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 8, 1903

Appeal from Wapello District Court.--HON. C. W. VERMILLION, Judge.

DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of lewdness and from the sentence imposed appeals.

Reversed.

Jaques & Jaques and McElroy & McElroy for appellant.

Chas W. Mullan, Attorney General, and Chas. A. Van Vleck Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

OPINION

DEEMER, J.

Defendant a dentist, was indicted for indecent exposure of his person in the presence of a young girl, who was in his office for treatment. Several witnesses whose names were not indorsed on the back of the indictment, were examined on behalf of the state. Notice of intention to introduce this evidence was given the defendant, but the sufficiency of this notice is challenged both as to form and substance. In view of the conclusions reached, we do not deem it necessary to consider these objections. For the purpose of proving that the act was willfully and designedly done, the state was permitted to prove, over objections, that defendant at other times and to other persons made indecent exposures of his person. At the time of making his objections defendant, through his counsel, admitted in open court, and in the presence of the jury, that, if the act with which he was charged was done at all, it was designedly done; that it was not accidental, or unintentional, or through inadvertence. Notwithstanding this admission, the court permitted the evidence to be introduced, and in its instructions said, in effect, that these transactions should only be considered for the purpose of showing the intent with which the act was done, and not as establishing the truth of the indecent exposure charged in the indictment. The rule as to the admission of similar acts at other times and with other persons than those charged in the indictment is well understood. The state cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment, either as a foundation for separate punishment or as aiding the proofs that he is guilty of the crime charged. The exceptions to the rule may be classified as follows: Evidence as to other offenses is competent to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others, and (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. These exceptions are illustrated and applied in the following among other cases: State v. Walters, 45 Iowa 389; State v. Jamison, 74 Iowa 613, 38 N.W. 509; State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72, 80 N.W. 214; State v. Brady, 100 Iowa 191, 69 N.W. 290; State v. Lewis, 96 Iowa 286, 65 N.W. 295; Staden v. Kline, 64 Iowa 180, 20...